Democrats like to blame anything but their high taxes and regulations for slow economic growth. Today, the culprit is robots.

Democrats never blame their policies and taxes for economic problems, therefore we get articles like this from Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post, blaming robots for the loss of manufacturing jobs and essentially saying a president or Congress can do nothing to bring them back.

From the article:

Mr. President, if you're looking for someone to demonize for killing blue-collar jobs in your favorite industries, don't blame China and "bad trade deals."

Blame the robots.

Barack Obama stammered his way through this YouTube video, saying manufacturing jobs aren't going to come back.  Obama had a history of blaming others for his slow economy.  In 2011, he blamed kiosks and ATMs.  What an economic genius.  No wonder we had slow economic growth. 

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.  You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. 

I wonder how Obama, Rampell, and others explain how manufacturing jobs are coming back.  Facts really haven't mattered for a long time. 

And the United States has added 138,000 manufacturing jobs so far this year, far better than the 34,000 factory jobs lost over the same period last year.  Last year's losses reinforced President Trump's portrayal of manufacturing in a long decline.

There have been a lot of garbage forecasts over the years by government, scientists, businessmen, economists, the media, and politicians that make excuses for economic problems.  One of the recurring "fake news" stories over the last 100 years has been that we are running out of oil.  (In fact, oil production is still growing, with new sources found all the time.)  When there is an agenda that fossil fuels are a problem, a lot of stuff is just made up.  The National Enquirer is more accurate. 

This article summarizes the made up predictions well.  It is titled "We've Been Incorrectly Predicting Peak Oil for Over a Century":

  • In 1909, we were going to run out in 25-30 years.
  • In 1919, Oil and Gas News said there were two to five years until maximum production.
  • In 1937, the director of the naval and production petroleum reserves said oil would be gone in 15 years.
  • In 1943, the Oil and Gas Journal said peak oil had been reached.
  • In 1956, a Shell Oil spokesman said there were 10-15 years before we hit peak oil.
  • In 1972, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said U.S. oil would be gone in twenty years.
  • In 1977, the U.S. Department of Energy said oil would peak in the early 1990s.
  • In 1996, a Nobel laureate in chemistry said we would hit peak oil by 2020.
  • In 2002, a group of petroleum specialists said we would hit peak oil by 2010.

These inaccurate, made up predictions remind me of all the made up, inaccurate predictions on global warming or climate change.  When there is an agenda, facts take a back seat. 

An expert on oil at Goldman Sachs predicted in 2008 that oil would hit $200 per barrel.

Arjun N. Murti remembers the pain of the oil shocks of the 1970s.  But he is bracing for something far worse now: He foresees a "super spike" – a price surge that will soon drive crude oil to $200 a barrel.

I can think of many reasons why Americans jobs are destroyed or moved and robots and automation are not at the top of the list.  Here are several I can think of:

If you want to bankrupt coal companies, make their jobs disappear, and make utility prices increase to support the agenda for alternative fuels, you have the EPA write rules and regulations based on inaccurate, manipulated computer models. 

If you want to destroy fossil fuel jobs and make energy prices rise, you block drilling and pipeline projects, not based on environmental studies, but because you have an agenda. 

If you want to destroy for-profit universities and their jobs, you make different rules and regulations for them from what you have for not-for-profit and government universities.

If you want to get to a single-payer government health system, you write a law with massive regulations, mandates, and taxes, which destroys competition, raises prices, and takes away the ability to make a profit. 

If you want to destroy small banks, you create a new bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with almost unlimited ability to create new compliance regulations. 

If you want fewer government projects, higher costs, and fewer jobs, you keep in place punitive prevailing wage laws. 

As for automation: In the 1800s, around half of Americans worked on farms.  We are much better off with fossil fuel machinery.  That did not destroy American jobs.  It created new American jobs. 

Mass production lines have been around for approximately 100 years, and that did not destroy manufacturing jobs in America.  It created new ones. 

Computers have been around for approximately 80 years, and I believe that Silicon Valley is creating lots of jobs. 

America has had an increasing trade deficit since 1974.  It is now over $600 billion per year.  The trade deficit reduces economic growth, and previous presidents have done little to make sure other countries don't dump.  Trump obviously likes trading with other countries because we are exporting oil and natural gas, which ticks off the Russians.  (Isn't that what the media and other Democrats want?) 

If Trump penalizes only China, China will trans-ship through other countries, and it won't solve the problem.

The obvious way to make the U.S economy grow faster is through fewer regulations, lower taxes, and bilateral trade agreements we can analyze instead of big ones that make politicians feel good. 

Thank goodness we now have a president who understands economics and surrounds himself with people with business experience, instead of a president who surrounds himself with people who just wanted to make the government bigger.  The U.S. became the greatest economic powerhouse in the world because of capitalism and economic freedom, not because of high taxes and regulations. 

Democrats never blame their policies and taxes for economic problems, therefore we get articles like this from Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post, blaming robots for the loss of manufacturing jobs and essentially saying a president or Congress can do nothing to bring them back.

From the article:

Mr. President, if you're looking for someone to demonize for killing blue-collar jobs in your favorite industries, don't blame China and "bad trade deals."

Blame the robots.

Barack Obama stammered his way through this YouTube video, saying manufacturing jobs aren't going to come back.  Obama had a history of blaming others for his slow economy.  In 2011, he blamed kiosks and ATMs.  What an economic genius.  No wonder we had slow economic growth. 

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.  You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. 

I wonder how Obama, Rampell, and others explain how manufacturing jobs are coming back.  Facts really haven't mattered for a long time. 

And the United States has added 138,000 manufacturing jobs so far this year, far better than the 34,000 factory jobs lost over the same period last year.  Last year's losses reinforced President Trump's portrayal of manufacturing in a long decline.

There have been a lot of garbage forecasts over the years by government, scientists, businessmen, economists, the media, and politicians that make excuses for economic problems.  One of the recurring "fake news" stories over the last 100 years has been that we are running out of oil.  (In fact, oil production is still growing, with new sources found all the time.)  When there is an agenda that fossil fuels are a problem, a lot of stuff is just made up.  The National Enquirer is more accurate. 

This article summarizes the made up predictions well.  It is titled "We've Been Incorrectly Predicting Peak Oil for Over a Century":

  • In 1909, we were going to run out in 25-30 years.
  • In 1919, Oil and Gas News said there were two to five years until maximum production.
  • In 1937, the director of the naval and production petroleum reserves said oil would be gone in 15 years.
  • In 1943, the Oil and Gas Journal said peak oil had been reached.
  • In 1956, a Shell Oil spokesman said there were 10-15 years before we hit peak oil.
  • In 1972, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said U.S. oil would be gone in twenty years.
  • In 1977, the U.S. Department of Energy said oil would peak in the early 1990s.
  • In 1996, a Nobel laureate in chemistry said we would hit peak oil by 2020.
  • In 2002, a group of petroleum specialists said we would hit peak oil by 2010.

These inaccurate, made up predictions remind me of all the made up, inaccurate predictions on global warming or climate change.  When there is an agenda, facts take a back seat. 

An expert on oil at Goldman Sachs predicted in 2008 that oil would hit $200 per barrel.

Arjun N. Murti remembers the pain of the oil shocks of the 1970s.  But he is bracing for something far worse now: He foresees a "super spike" – a price surge that will soon drive crude oil to $200 a barrel.

I can think of many reasons why Americans jobs are destroyed or moved and robots and automation are not at the top of the list.  Here are several I can think of:

If you want to bankrupt coal companies, make their jobs disappear, and make utility prices increase to support the agenda for alternative fuels, you have the EPA write rules and regulations based on inaccurate, manipulated computer models. 

If you want to destroy fossil fuel jobs and make energy prices rise, you block drilling and pipeline projects, not based on environmental studies, but because you have an agenda. 

If you want to destroy for-profit universities and their jobs, you make different rules and regulations for them from what you have for not-for-profit and government universities.

If you want to get to a single-payer government health system, you write a law with massive regulations, mandates, and taxes, which destroys competition, raises prices, and takes away the ability to make a profit. 

If you want to destroy small banks, you create a new bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with almost unlimited ability to create new compliance regulations. 

If you want fewer government projects, higher costs, and fewer jobs, you keep in place punitive prevailing wage laws. 

As for automation: In the 1800s, around half of Americans worked on farms.  We are much better off with fossil fuel machinery.  That did not destroy American jobs.  It created new American jobs. 

Mass production lines have been around for approximately 100 years, and that did not destroy manufacturing jobs in America.  It created new ones. 

Computers have been around for approximately 80 years, and I believe that Silicon Valley is creating lots of jobs. 

America has had an increasing trade deficit since 1974.  It is now over $600 billion per year.  The trade deficit reduces economic growth, and previous presidents have done little to make sure other countries don't dump.  Trump obviously likes trading with other countries because we are exporting oil and natural gas, which ticks off the Russians.  (Isn't that what the media and other Democrats want?) 

If Trump penalizes only China, China will trans-ship through other countries, and it won't solve the problem.

The obvious way to make the U.S economy grow faster is through fewer regulations, lower taxes, and bilateral trade agreements we can analyze instead of big ones that make politicians feel good. 

Thank goodness we now have a president who understands economics and surrounds himself with people with business experience, instead of a president who surrounds himself with people who just wanted to make the government bigger.  The U.S. became the greatest economic powerhouse in the world because of capitalism and economic freedom, not because of high taxes and regulations.