You just can’t squeeze water from a stone.
And, redeploying funds to politically popular but nonproductive uses lowers productivity and costs jobs.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:
Both Obama and congressional Democrats believe we can move to a new carbon-free future by “investing” in “green” technologies and infrastructure, while creating millions of new jobs.
As it stands, Obama is eyeing $100 billion in “green stimulus” as part of a much bigger package — as much as $700 billion or more — of conventional stimulus. He reckons this will create up to five million “green-collar jobs” and “jolt” the economy back to life.
“Clean energy is going to be a foundation for rebuilding the American economy,” says Bracken Hendricks of the liberal Center for American Progress and a member of Obama’s transition team.
How will the money be spent? “School repairs,” according to a Bloomberg report, “could be required to meet green building standards, including low-energy boilers and weatherization. Transportation spending could emphasize public transit, and support for new power sources such as wind . . . could go hand in hand with spending on an efficient electricity superhighway.”
Sounds great. But it’ll take money — plus new regulations that will make it more expensive to do anything with oil, even if there are no reasonable alternatives.
Nowhere is it mentioned that these “green-collar jobs” would be terribly costly, and that the planned “investments” are really just subsidies. And, as we know, things that require subsidies aren’t competitive in the market, and thus aren’t profitable.
Claims that such “investments” will create five million jobs are false. It’s likely more jobs will be killed than created due to higher costs and increased inefficiency of the U.S. economy. A recent report from the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation found that limiting CO2 emissions under recent proposed legislation would destroy 900,000 net jobs.
Spending money on projects where costs exceed benefits simply to “create jobs” is a bad idea. Taking capital from productive uses and redeploying it to politically popular but nonproductive uses lowers productivity by paying those with “green jobs” more than their output is worth. It’s not welfare, it’s “greenfare.”
This, by the way, was the make-work model followed during the Great Depression. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.
UPDATE: Businesses are already suffering from the new environmental regulations.
