I have to say I was going to write about branding today. It appears that Mike (The Situation) Sorrentino has been asked not to wear Ambercrombie and Fitch clothing. Supposedly his wearing their clothing is having an adverse affect on their brand image. This has occurred on top of the fact that Italy wasn’t too thrilled about having the Jersey Shore gang visiting museums in Florence. Brand image is everything, just ask Nike.
However, today’s WSJ convinced me to write about something else. I teach introductory Economics at Warner Pacific College, and I agree with Christina Romer from the University of California at Berkley when she says that there are two kinds of students, those that hate Economics and those that really hate Economics. Part of this issue for us at Warner is my class starts at 8am. Not the best of time for young students.
However, this is not what convinced me to go a different direction, it was a comment made in the article about the purpose of unemployment insurance. The White House Press Secretary Jay Carney at a press conference stated that unemployment insurance “is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. . . and that creates growth and income for businesses that then lead them to making decisions about jobs – more hiring.” Stephen Moore, the author of this article, responds by saying that the White House is telling us that the more “unemployed people that we pay for not working, the more people will work.”
I have been very fortunate through my career to have been out of work three times. In all three situations it was a very short period of time. The unemployment check, which I collected twice, helped me have money to take care of my family while I looked for a job. However, not everyone has been that fortunate, and not everyone responds to being unemployed the same way.
Some people see unemployment payments as something to hold them over while they are trying to find employment, while others see it as an opportunity to stay at home and collect a paycheck. In fact, these folks think everyone owes them a paycheck. However, this debate is just part of what caught my attention. It was the phrase “economic bimboism” that really interested me.
Economic bimboism involves misinformation given to make people think you know what you are talking about. Moore argues that President Obama has used a variation of economic theory to persuade us to accept his programs to stimulate the economy. Moore also states that he does not believe in the mythical multiplier affect, nor macroeconomics.
Moore is right when he says Americans hate economics because it is too confusing. Economists are always saying on the one hand it is this way, but on the other it is this. Someone once said because of this problem, of saying on the one hand and then on the other hand, “give me a one handed economist.” Some economists are saying that we need more stimulus, and others are saying that we need more supply. The fact is we need strong economic growth. We need more people working, earning a living wage.
Weakening the dollar by printing more money is not the solution, and have bigger government isn’t either. It is an efficient market with people working that is the answer. America let’s get to work. Lets be entrepreneurs, lets be risk takers, lets quit relying on large corporations, and lets innovate and create news things that the world will buy. Lets desire to produce and work hard. Lets quit arguing about theory and just do it, instead of thinking that the world owes us a free paycheck.
And that is my thought for the day!