Back to politics page.

• Stadium projects. This really irritates me. It's a subsidy to NFL owners. I'm not sure why they need a subsidy. The local government typically spends hundreds of millions of dollars to build a stadium, declaring that it will create new jobs and tourism. Ah, give me a break. If a stadium was an economically good decision, I think the NFL should pay for that stadium. And if it doesn't make economic sense, why should the city build it?
    For example, today Illinois is in a budget crisis. They are cutting essential services. But at least our football team has a $400 million stadium to play in!
• Farm subsidies. Every year, the farmers head to Washington and explain the plight of the small farmer. They then return home with countless billions of dollars in federal grants. They are paid not to grow their crops.
    Well, I love farmers. I love small farmers- that is, farmers who have small pieces of land, not physically small farmers. But the free market has spoken. It doesn't really make sense in America to have small farms. It's time for the small farmer to learn how to do something else, like information technology. Yes, it is sad, especially for farmers who have had the farms in their family for generations. But it is the truth.
    If we just put these farmers on welfare, the U.S. would save a lot of money. Instead, we are supporting them to perform an job which doesn't really make economic sense.
• Insurance to people who live in coastal areas. I heard this on NPR the other day, and it shocked me, I have to say. Did you know that the government, specifically FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) insures people who live in coastal areas that are prone to hurricanes? So, next time you see a house on the coast, and you say, "who would build there?", now you know the answer. Anyone would build there, because the government is paying for the risk.
    So, where private insurers do not go, the federal goverment will go. And what do we get out of it? Nothing. Just a bunch of houses on fragile coastal lands that shouldn't really be there anyways.
• Protectionism. Protectionism will be a huge issue in the Presidential campaign. You can be sure the unions prefer trade barriers. I'm not sure if this makes sense, actually. Let's say that the Japanese can make steel more cheaply than the U.S. Now, with no trade barriers, the U.S. steelmakers would be out of work. But, consumers in the U.S. could buy cheaper steel. So, we would save money that way. Then, we could put all the U.S. steelmakers on welfare, and train them for jobs that the U.S. could compete in.
    Does this sound harsh? Maybe. But I think from a logical, economic perspective, it does make sense. I myself was in the telecommunications industry, which evaporated. But I did not hear anyone saying that the government should spend billions of dollars supporting telecom. The fact is, if no one really needs telecom, then the telecom workers have to shift into another line of work.
    In the same way, I think the U.S. has to be able to compete in a global market. When other countries can produce goods cheaper and more efficiently than the U.S., then we should be buying their products. We can't just put our hands over our eyes and say, "I can't see you." If Africa can produce food more cheaply than the U.S., then we should buy food from Africa. Particularly in manufacturing commodities, the U.S. may not be able to compete with Third World countries. There, the workers are paid less. Still, maybe this kind of manufacturing is not the market segment that the U.S. wants to be in right now.
    What really hurts is that India now can perform high-technology work that is cheaper than the U.S. So, in the area of technology where the U.S. has typically been a leader, we find that we are losing jobs there, too.
    But we cannot just react by protecting U.S. jobs with trade barriers. Instead, we have to innovate, and find areas in which the U.S. can compete with other countries. Also, if an Indian software programmer makes $10,000 a year, and does the same work as an American who makes $100,000 a year, this could mean that Americans will eventually have to accept work for $10,000 a year. It's unfortunate, but perhaps true. It's the competitive world that we live in.