Printed letters, September 4, 2013
The Daily Sentinel’s account of the renovation of Main Street in the 1960s notes also that uranium production was near its peak. The uranium boom was pumping money into the local economy.
The construction of the current Grand Junction Regional Airport terminal occurred during the oil shale boom of the early 1980s. St. Mary’s Hospital expansion occurred during the gas boom of the early 2000s. That these and many other capital improvements we continue to enjoy occurred during the boom cycle was, in my mind, not a coincidence.
I have lived in Mesa County through all these booms and the busts that followed, including the bust of the 1930s. I have to say that I prefer a boom-bust economy to a perpetual bust-bust economy that seems to be the current goal.
Consumers are the ones who really create the jobs
The recent letter from Richard Blosser suggesting, in effect, that we should be thankful for businessmen who provide the jobs we badly need indicates either a lack of understanding of basic economics or that he is under the spell of our local Chamber of Commerce.
Nobody invests his or her money in a business with the objective of providing jobs. The businessman is the one who should be thankful that there is a demand for the product he is selling. Only members of the public make it possible for the businessman to exist because they provide the necessary demand and ability to pay that caused the businessman to choose to go into business in the first place. Show me a businessman whose first concern is to provide jobs, on a continuing basis, and I’ll show you a person who will soon be out of business.
Blosser seems to have fallen under the spell of those who are “supply-siders,” who truly seem to believe that if you provide it, they will come. Any good businessman will laugh you out of his presence with such a belief. Business exists to fill a need or demand. Whether jobs are created is totally dependent on the strength of the demand, and the best businessmen seek to hire as few people as possible to carry out the needs of satisfying the existing demand at any particular time.
No, as much as our local chamber would like Blosser to believe that businessmen are superhuman and should be put onto pedestals, the fact is that the persons who should be on that pedestal are the source of all business profits: the consumers.
Time to reject Obamacare and develop a better plan
Did we really need a 21,000-page piece of legislation to correct our health care system? I think not.
To begin with, it should never have been called the “Affordable” Care Act when it is not. “Obamacare” is probably more fitting. Unfortunately, the whole matter is now totally political and both the merits and the negatives are being ignored or supported, depending on what party to which you belong.
Sadly, both sides agree with some of the major items, i.e. keeping children on their parents’ health care until age 26 if they want or need to and making coverage available regardless of pre-existing conditions.
However, both these could have been accomplished with the support of both parties instead of the individual mandate or the ultimate aim to get to a single-payer system. Unfortunately, for political reasons they ignored such important items as the hot potato of tort reform and the ability to purchase across state lines instead of 50 “exchanges” and “navigators.”
These could have been accomplished on their own and not by changing the entire health system, which, by the way, is the best in the world. They also could have approached the uninsured problem some other way in lieu of forcing the other people and corporations to pay for it in its entirety. And, best of all, they would not need the out-of-control and dysfunctional IRS to enforce the system.
Time to get rid of this awful plan and start over by just looking at the areas where the politicians agree and the American people favor.
U.S. should have adopted alternative fuels in the ‘80s
John Justman’s take on European green energy in his Sunday column leaves many critical facts unstated.
For one thing, Germany has frozen subsidies due more to burdening its citizens in unstable economic times than whether “green” is working or not. Also, most people familiar with renewables understand that there will still be a need for some fossil fuels as a backup.
The fact that a country such as Germany went ahead with solar even with moderate sunshine shows a commitment to modern technology and lowering dependence on dino-fuels (much of which come from Russia).
If we had made the sort of rational, moderate commitment to solar, etc. in the ‘80s and continued it through today, we would not even be mentioning any of this (and we would not be supporting unfriendly Mideast regimes, either).
John Justman’s column presented rational view
Thanks, Daily Sentinel, for publishing John Justman’s thoughtful piece. It is wonderful to read rational economic opinion.