April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
This study out of a Madrid university’s economics department is going to cause some discomfort among the Enron-successors of the world, prowling the halls of Congress seeking hundreds of billions in rents — requiring increased taxes and causing increased energy costs — for their uneconomic pets.
I have the study. Highlights include:
- Based upon the Spanish experience that President Oprompter expressly cited as a model, if he succeeded in his (oddly floating) promise to further intervene in the economy to create 3 million (or is it 5 million?) “green jobs,” the U.S. should expect to directly kill by the same programs at least 6.6 million (or as many as 11 million) jobs elsewhere in the economy.
- That is because green jobs schemes in Spain killed 2.2 jobs per job created, or about 9 existing jobs - I’ll call them “real” jobs - lost for every 4 that are created. The latter, the study shows, then become wards of the state, dependent on the continuation of the mandates and subsidies, subject to the ritual boom and bust of artifically concocted jobs (read: ethanol).
- This does not include jobs lost due to redirection of resources, but are only the jobs directly killed by the scheme.
- The study calculates that since 2000, Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job,” including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind-industry job.
- Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.39 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.32 by wind energy, 5.84 by mini-hydro.
What’s Spanish for “food-taster” and “car-starter”?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online