David Brooks, "Après Rahm, Le Déluge," Versus Paul Krugman, "The iPhone Stimulus"

Note the stark dichotomy.

Approving the no-nonsense handling of the Chicago teachers' strike by Rahm Emanuel in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Après Rahm, Le Déluge" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/opinion/brooks-apres-rahm-le-deluge.html), David Brooks observes that there are two economies which "exist side by side" in modern nations.

According to Brooks, "Economy I" consists of manufacturing companies which "are compelled to constantly innovate and streamline" owing to global competition.

In contrast, Brooks's "Economy II" includes governmental bodies active in "health care, education, prisons and homeland security."

Brooks writes:

"Over the past 50 years, spending on K-12 education has also skyrocketed. In 1960, Americans spent roughly $2,800 per student, in today’s dollars. Now we spend roughly $11,000 per student. This spending binge has not produced comparable gains in student outcomes. Education productivity is down, too.

If Economy I is great at generating output without generating employment, Economy II is great at generating employment without generating output."

The problem is that the bloated Economy II is becoming a burden that Economy I can no longer carry. Unless we reform Economy II and control its spending, the bloat will crush us. National productivity will slide. The economy will stagnate."

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman, in his Times op-ed entitled "The iPhone Stimulus" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/opinion/krugman-the-iphone-stimulus.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp), notes that spending on the new iPhone 5 could provide an instant boost to the US economy. And if spending on the iPhone could provide significant stimulation, Krugman argues that the government should now provide similar assistance:

"Long ago, John Maynard Keynes suggested that the answer was 'use, decay, and obsolescence': even in a depressed economy, at some point businesses will start replacing equipment, either because the stuff they have has worn out, or because much better stuff has come along; and, once they start doing that, the economy perks up. Sure enough, that’s what Apple is doing. It’s bringing on the obsolescence. Good.

But why suffer through years of depressed output and high unemployment while waiting for enough obsolescence to accumulate? Why not have the government step in and spend more, say on education and infrastructure, to help the economy through its rough patch?"

Well, I won't be buying an iPhone 5. I own an "obsolescent" BlackBerry and will somehow made do. On the other hand, I respect the free market decision of persons desiring to purchase and enjoy this latest technological marvel.

But hire more educators in Chicago, where, according to Brooks, "The average Chicago teacher makes $76,000 a year in a city where the average worker makes $47,000 a year"?

Or, consider Obama's proposed American Jobs Act. This legislation would have added 1.3 million jobs at a price of $447 billion. So divide $447 billion by 1.3 million jobs, and what do you get? Taxpayers would have been saddled with a cost of $344,000 per job.

Excuse me, Paul, but economic stimulation managed by the federal government during the first term of the Obama administration has already taken US debt over $16 trillion with nothing to show for it. (Yeah, sure, the recession might have been worse without it.) Ultimately, however, someone, who had no say in how the federal government distributed these funds, will be forced to foot the bill.

Thank you, but I think I will side with David in this instance.