My Beauty Best Teacher

Stephen Thomsen has just published a paper(PDF) on the increasing level of private investment in Africa:
"...Private capital flows to Africa in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI) are growing. While in the past much of this investment was limited to the raw materials sector, the current wave involves firms from more countries and sectors than ever before.
• Foreign investors, including from within Africa itself, invested almost $50 billion in Africa during 2000–03. While this represents only a small share of global flows, the more relevant comparison is with the size of the African economy. By this measure sub-Saharan Africa attracts almost as much FDI as Southeast Asia.
• Although Europe remains the principal source of investment, a rising share is coming both from Asia and from within Africa itself.
• Investors have been influenced by improvements in governance, most notably with respect to the business climate, where the desire to attract foreign investors can provide a strong incentive for African governments to reform their policies and practices. Although much remains to be done, some countries have nevertheless made great progress in areas such as political and economic stabilization, privatization and simplification of cumbersome regulations.
• This foreign investment also has implications for patterns of trade and integration. Many African exports are channelled through multinational enterprises, helping to integrate African countries both with one another and with the global economy.
Via Owen.org

The President of the United States fills a lot of important roles in our political system- Commander-in-Chief, Chief Executive, Chief Legislator, Chief Jurist, Chief of State, Chief Diplomat, Head of Political Party, Popular Leader, etc- and to the list of these roles we now apparently must add 'Investor-in-Chief.'

Head of executive branches, whether at the state level as Governors or at the national level with our President, increasingly believe that it is part of their job description to take the money that taxpayers send to them to perform important government functions and instead gamble that money away on risky investments- the more risky and uncertain the investment, the more it seems that these executives are likely to dump precious taxpayer money into them.

Here in Michigan, we had a Governor that won a second term of office believing that she was a good Governor because she dumped taxpayer money into 'green energy' and 'cool cities' and the movie industry; upon further review and looked at with a true eye for costs and investment gains, these investments all turned out to range from bad to poor to horrible. Taxpayer money was distributed in a corrupt manner based more on political favors and little to no lasting gains came from these investments, certainly not enough to justify calling these schemes 'investment' in the private marketplace.

At the national level, Barack Obama believes that one of his major roles as President is to direct investments for the future, in spite of his lack of experience, training, or record of success in investing. No one would ever hire him to direct their personal investments, and yet as President he is doing just this with our public money at a time when public money is in short supply and needed ever more vitally. And the process that these investments are awarded are corrupt, filled with political considerations and backroom deals that would put any private businessman in prison for their actions.

The Washington Post writes about this role of the President in its article Barack Obama, investor-in-chief. From the article:

Would you buy a used car from Barack Obama? Or would you want him managing your 401(k) investment retirement plan at work? The president, of course, isn’t in that business specifically, but in a larger sense he’s been investing our money, picking the businesses he thinks will fuel economic expansion, new jobs and the technology of the future, and rebuild the nation’s fraying infrastructure.

All it takes is money - ours - he says, and he’s been spending it as fast as he can in a failed attempt to get the economy growing again. The economic policy term for this is “central planning,” wherein the government tries to pick the winners and losers and dumps hundreds of billions of dollars into various business sectors in the belief that it will pay off in the long run.

The government isn’t very good at this business, as we’ve seen in the disastrously ineffective $825 billion spending stimulus plan that President Obama and the Democrats shoved through Congress in 2009. Much of that money went into the budgets of countless federal departments, agencies and other programs that spent it. Still more went to states, counties, cities and towns for infrastructure programs or to keep public workers employed. A lot of the money was given to businesses that Mr. Obama thinks will be good for the environment, though his investment decisions didn’t always work out the way he hoped.

Consider the White House-backed solar energy firm Solyndra Inc., which declared bankruptcy this week after pocketing a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. Critics called the deal a “stimulus black hole.”

When Mr. Obama visited the Solyndra factory in May 2010, he called the company a success story that was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”

He was quite proud of his investment, boasting at the time, “Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty lot,” but now here was this shiny, new factory that “is the result of those loans” backed by his administration.
It was later learned that the White House fast-tracked Solyndra’s loan application, rushing Mr. Obama’s pet project through without a lot of serious checking. Federal investigators said that the administration had bypassed procedures to safeguard the taxpayers’ investment.

Mr. Obama is big on the solar-panel industry and under his policies, the government has dumped a lot of our money into it in the past three years. But it turns out that the U.S. industry has not turned out to be the bonanza that he sold to the country. Prices for solar panels have fallen because of strong competition from China, making the fledgling industry precarious at best without heavy federal subsidies.

Evergreen Solar Inc. filed for bankruptcy last month after being forced to close its plant in Massachusetts that was built with state and local government subsidies.

Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, says the loan guarantee program “has not worked as well as we had hoped.” Sounds like a Wall Street investment banker defending a fat bundle of subprime real estate securities that went bad.

The solar-panel industry is not the only “investment” Mr. Obama has sunk a lot of our money into. While the plants build with his loans make for great campaign photo ops, the costly reality is that government is trying to pick the winners and losers in our economy instead of the private sector.

But Mr. Obama thinks he’s good at this investment business and now he is trying to convince us to buy into to a new federal “infrastructure bank” that will make off-budget grants and loans to rebuild “roads, bridges and ports and broadband lines and smart grids” with $30 billion of our money.

The bank would put “all those [unemployed] construction workers” back to work, he said. And it would provide Mr. Obama with lots of photo ops at jobsites, saying “look what I’ve done for you.”

If this sounds familiar, it was sold to us in the guise of the 2009 job stimulus bill that was supposed to put the construction industry back to work. Some short-term jobs were created but when the building projects were completed, the jobs ended. The construction industry today is in a recession.

Making Mr. Obama the investor-in-chief, deciding how and where the nation’s capital resources should be spent, hasn’t worked and isn’t going to work. Ask Japan, which has gone on a public-works spending binge though its economy has been in a slump for two decades.

Better to shift federal public-works spending decisions to the states, along with the gas tax money for highways, and let them - not remote federal bureaucrats - set their own priorities. Broaden the tax base by eliminating dozens of loopholes, then cut business and individual tax rates, and slash the capital gains tax to unlock needed, job-creating investment capital.

Let the marketplace make the investment decisions that have made America the largest and most successful economy in the world. Mr. Obama has got better things to do with his time, like trying to figure out why his job approval polls have fallen to 39 percent.

Warrick Smith writes(PDF) about the potential of entrepreneurship in the developing world. "...Today, few informed commentators question that the private sector plays a critical role in growth and poverty reduction. The ideological debates of the past are giving way to more pragmatic discussions about how best to unleash and expand that contribution while preserving other social values. New research is also providing fresh insights into what works and what doesn’t...when assessing the contribution of entrepreneurship to development,we need a more encompassing view. We need to include peasant farmers toiling in their fields in Uganda and Bangladesh; street vendors peddling their wares in La Paz and Manila; and microenterprises in Cairo and Istanbul...The private sector is the principal source of investment, with domestic private investment substantially overshadowing foreign investment across the developing world...The private sector accounts for about 90 percent of jobs in developing countries, .and poor people rate self-employment and jobs as the two most promising ways to improve their situation. But employment is not the only mechanism. A vibrant private sector expands the availability and reduces the prices of goods in society, including goods consumed by poor people. And firms and commercial transactions are the main source of taxes from which governments can empower the poor through investments in health, education and other public goods, as well as through direct income transfers..."

Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic former Governor of Michigan, is exactly right- the United States can learn a lot of lessons from Michigan's government- lessons on what not to do.

Before the Obama years, many looked back at the Bush years and talked about how bad 4% GDP growth and 6% unemployment were, but to be honest, those numbers were never that good in Michigan, which suffered under a single state recession for much of the 2000's and had low GDP growth rates, high unemployment, and bad numbers on everything else. For many years, the people of this great state were told that the reason why Michigan was doing so poorly was George W. Bush's fault- but from 2009 to 2011 Bush was gone and yet Michigan still led the nation in all of the wrong numbers. The reason why Michigan did poorly as a state from 2003 to 2011 was because during this time our state had a progressive Democrat as Governor who put in place the same policies at the state level that have failed so miserably at the national level as well.

Governor Granholm believed that the government should take money from those who are successful and then use that money to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace. Her administration decided that what made a company or an industry a 'winner' was not whether or not it was profitable, whether it provided a good that was valued by society highly (as determined by private investment), or whether it was a stable and sound investment. No, under Democratic officials and Granholm, the decision to use the power of government to anoint an industry a 'winner' was made based on political decisions of whether or not that industry or company donated to the Democratic Party, the decision was made based on whether or not the industry or business was deemed 'cool' and 'hip', and whether not the business or industry provided a good or service that the ruling powers liked, whether it was 'green products' or movies.

Using the power of the government to transfer wealth from savers and producers and successful people to those who are spenders and wasters and unsuccessful has a decided effect on an economy, whether at the state level or the national level- it leads to less economic success, more waste, more inefficiency, less jobs, less tax revenue, and a thoroughly lessened society on almost every level. When property is taken and corrupt decisions are made in the government, a state and a nation are not successful.

Michigan showed the entire nation what would happen if those same policies were enacted at the national level- it was a lesson of what not to do. And yet, in spite of this, much like our national leaders that continue to press on in the face of failure, those who inflicted this awful economy on us have no apologies and hold true to their course. President Barack Obama, much like Jennifer Granholm, will not change in any substantive manner and will not alter his policies if he wins a second term.

Jennifer Granholm is coming out with a new book, "A Governor's Story: The Fight for Jobs and America's Economic Future," and in it she gives our great nation of how not to run a state or government or anything at all.

As is typical in a government which inserts itself into the marketplace and plays political games with citizens, the book talks about all of the political gamesmanship and behind-the-scenes deal-making and continual crisis that marked the Granholm years in Michigan. The book argues that government involvement — tax payer money given away in the name of green jobs and pork programs — is essential to economic growth, in spite of the track record that that philosophy has had whenever and wherever it has been tried. They attempt to argue that because another government has (the Obama administration) has awarded tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money borrowed on credit from China as loans to various industries in Michigan over the last couple of years, this is some sort of an indication of success for their method.

Granholm says "Smart and active government is really what's needed"- as if a small elite class of unconnected politicians working in a capital will be smarter than the thousands of decisions that free citizens make every day in a free market, and as if a more active government will not crowd out investment and decisions freely made by businessman and force them into making unwise and bad investments.

"If you place no bets, you will lose every time," she said, suggesting that the government should use its extreme lack of information about the market and rely on its lack of personal investment in the situation to gamble away taxpayer money at every political or 'cool' industry or company that comes along. Oh, a couple of those bets will win- even a Democrat finds his way out of a recession every now and then- but on the whole, taxpayers will take it on the chin many more times than not, and Granholm and her cronies will walk away with pensions, paychecks, a nice university position, and a new book.

United States, be prepared- Michigan has shown the nation the way, and don't ever forget- Granholm won a second term of office after her disastrous first term saw her destroy Michigan's economy and ruin many lives.

Detroit News provided quotes and source information.

The Economist writes:

Ethiopia likes to do things differently. In September it started celebrating the new millennium, more than seven years after everybody else. The country has been out of step in this respect since 1582: while the rest of the Christian world changed to the revised Gregorian calendar, Ethiopia stuck to the Julian. It also still keeps its own time, measured in 12-hour cycles rather than 24-hour ones.

Referring to its comatose private sector:

The reasons for this economic crawl are not hard to find. Beyond the government-directed state, funded substantially by foreign aid, there is—almost uniquely in Africa—virtually no private-sector business at all. The IMF estimates that in 2005-06 the share of private investment in the country was just 11%, nearly unchanged since Mr Zenawi took over in the early 1990s. That is partly a reflection of the fact that, despite some privatisation since the centralised Marxist days of the Derg, large areas of the economy remain government monopolies, closed off to private business.

And its debilitating state-run syndrome

This is where Ethiopia misses out badly. Take telecoms. While the rest of Africa has been virtually transformed in just a few years by a revolution in mobile telephony, Ethiopia stumbles along with its inept and useless government-run services. Everywhere else, a plethora of South African, home-grown and European providers has leapt into the market to provide Africans with an extraordinary array of cheaper and more efficient services, now used even by the poorest of farmers, for instance, to check spot prices for agricultural goods in markets miles away. And the mobile-phone revolution has created thousands of new livelihoods; at times it seems as if every boy on a street corner is hawking a top-up card. Not in Ethiopia.
It is the same story in financial services, where, despite the growth of some smaller private banks, no foreign banks are allowed. Micro-finance schemes have expanded exponentially, but it remains almost impossible to find start-up loans for small or medium businesses.

Last year, our nation had a choice for President. On one hand we had a man who sprouted very nice sounding platitudes but lacked experience and had a very extreme voting record. On the other hand we had a man who spoke truthfully about the situation and had a lot of experience and had solid and well thought out policy positions. Sadly, those two were not on the same ballot- the experienced solid conservative lost in the primaries to John McCain. If only we could have had a chance to elect Mitt Romney last election, things might have turned out differently.

That's not to say that there would have been no recession, healthcare would not have been a concern, and Iran would have continued to enrich uranium. If Mitt Romney would have become President instead of Barack Obama, those things would still have happened. But the key question is how would Romney have handled those situations differently than Obama and how those differences might affect our nation.

Some people think there is no difference between the two major parties or think that Romney wasn't really that different than someone like Obama. They are wrong. In many important and key situations Romney would have advocated considerably different policies than Obama, policies that may have led to a shorter and less severe recession, that would have lowered the cost of healthcare, and that would have led to Iran thinking twice about seeking the bomb.

This is not idle thoughts- Mitt Romney wrote an editorial this week in USA Today where he laid out some things he would have done as President differently than Barack Obama. This is why he was and remains my choice for President:

• Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven't yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.
• Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring. For example, install a robust investment tax credit, permit businesses to expense capital purchases made in 2010, and reduce payroll taxes. These will reignite construction, technology and a wide array of capital goods industries, and lead to expanded employment.
• Prove to the global investors that finance America's debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements. These are key to strengthening the dollar, reducing the threat of rampant inflation and holding down interest rates.
• Close down any talk of carbon cap-and-trade. It will burden consumers and employers with billions in new costs. Instead, greatly expand our commitment to natural gas and nuclear, boosting jobs now and reducing the export of energy jobs and dollars later.
• Tell the unions that job-stifling "card check" legislation is off the table. Laying new burdens on small business will kill entrepreneurship and job creation.
• Don't allow a massive tax increase to go into effect in 2011 with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The specter of more tax-fueled government spending and the reduction of capital available for small business will hinder investment and business expansion.
• New spending should be strictly limited to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad and essential infrastructure at home.
• Install dynamic regulations for the financial sector — rules that are up to date, efficient and not excessively burdensome. But do not so tie up the financial sector with red tape that we lose a vital component of our economic system.
• Open the doors to trade. Give important friends like Colombia favored trade status rather than bow to protectionist demands. Now is the time for aggressive pursuit of opportunities for new markets for American goods, not insular retrenchment.
• Stop frightening the private sector by continuing to hold GM stock, by imposing tighter and tighter controls on compensation, and by pursuing a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Government encroachment on free enterprise is depressing investment and job creation.

These are great points and both Republicans and Democrats should get behind Romney and support his bid for President in 2012.

Marion Mühlberger of Deutsch Bank Research wrote(pdf) in June 2007 about the lack of USD-denominated investment opportunities within Nigeria:

The redemption of the Brady bond by Nigeria last November has considerably reduced USD-denominated investment opportunities. As investment options in USD and EUR are scarce, institutional investors go for synthetic bonds, so-called credit linked notes. Another option is corporate bonds, e.g. USD-denominated bonds issued by large Nigerian financial institutions. However, these entail additional company-specific risks and frequently require a very high minimum investment. The stock market also offers very few opportunities for private investors as emerging markets share certificates in the past did not cover Nigeria at all due to a lack of liquidity in the market; at present, this is the case to only a small degree. But the Nigerian capital markets are making quick progress so over the next few years we will see improving investment opportunities in the country

Prerna Mankad writes in Foreign Policy:

SWFs are obligated to make the best investments for the citizens of their home countries. They are not in the business of aid or charity work; nor should they be... If African governments are not even willing to invest in their own continent, why should others do so?...there are good reasons why many private companies are unwilling to invest and set up operations in Africa. Why else would Zoellick and others be pushing SWFs to fill the equity void in the first place? Corruption, lack of security, and failure to protect property rights are just a few of the reasons countries in Africa have failed to create a positive investment climate. If SWFs step in with billions of dollars, they may well undermine efforts to promote good governance. In the long run, it is those efforts -- not easy cash from Abu Dhabi or Beijing -- that will attract private investment and generate sustainable economic development. So, although an extra $30 billion for Africa should be welcomed, SWFs may not be the best way to deliver it.

A report(pdf) on post-conflict financing states:

Private investment in infrastructure in postconflict countries follows a clear sequence of sectors, with mobile telephony the only one likely to attract significant investment immediately after conflict. All the postconflict countries analyzed had at least one private mobile operator investing in the country after it emerged from war. The willingness of mobile operators to invest in high-risk environments reflects the rapid cost recovery allowed by the sector’s economics.Beyond telecommunications, the attractiveness of infrastructure investments in postconflict countries drops precipitously. Power projects remain somewhat attractive, particularly in generation, where projects start to emerge three years after conflict and increase in frequency after five years.

via PSD Blog

John Nellis rebuts a paper that contends that the privatisation of basic utilities has been a failure in Africa(pdf) .His reasons are that the writers:

-overestimate the ease of improving performance in state-owned firms.
-underestimate the amount of investment capital required in run-down African water and electricity sectors.
-the Policy Research Brief does not mention the promising ‘hybrid’ experiments (Athi Water) that combine local African private management with public ownership.

In summary:

the solution is not to eschew private investment,but rather find mechanisms to make it more politically acceptable,more socially responsible and more mutually beneficial.

via Sociolingo

An FT report on African infrastructure finance states:

Passions run high over all forms of privatisation and private-sector involvement in public utilities. But many experts and officials at international institutions say there is no option between public and private sectors. Infrastructure needs, they argue, will never be met without the resources of both...It has become clear that areas such as transport will continue to depend heavily on injections of public investment and donor support, but public money will have to used in different ways to combine with commercial interests. Mobilisation of capital, including private-sector capital, is one of the “pillars” of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad), the economic revival initiative launched five years ago...Africa can also bring to bear its own private savings. South Africa’s Public Investment Corporation, which manages pension funds, is backing a Pan-African Infrastructure Development Fund, aiming initially to raise $1bn for long-term equity investments with participation from other pension funds and the AfDB.

Thanks Pablo!!

Franklin Cudjoe writes "...Globalization can hardly be blamed for the fact that only 10 percent of Africa’s trade takes place among African countries themselves. With 750 million people living on the continent, the potential for the expansion of trade must be enormous. Very little trade has been allowed in this poorest of continents where tariffs are almost as high as 50 percent and where highway robbers dressed as customs officials block free exchange...Capital is a cowardly bird. It flies to safer places where it expects to earn better returns. 40 percent of Africa’s private investment takes place outside of the continent, while only 3 percent of Asia’s investment takes place overseas...If there is to be any hope for long term prosperity in Africa, Africans must be given the predictability that comes with the rule of law, the protection of private property and free markets, and decentralized management of resources. This will harness local knowledge along with the creativity, diligence, and thrift that is natural to Africans..."
Via PsdBlog

This post is going to attempt to tie together commentary of FDR, Green Jobs, the Michigan 21st Century Investment Fund, and Jeff Daniels... I hope it makes sense.

As a teacher, I always become annoyed when students repeat the myth that FDR saved us from the Great Depression. It is now such a widely accepted myth that when I voice my doubts, the students think that I must be joking. It is like claiming the world is flat they think- after all, look at all the jobs that FDR created to fight the Great Depression. Look at all the never-done-before government actions, and the massive expansions in federal power that he shoved through during an unprecedented 4 terms in office. Surely he saved us, because after all, massive government action must be good, right?

Wrong. It is a myth that FDR saved us from the Great Depression. Excellent information this can be found in the essay Great Myths of the Great Depression. In fact, FDR's New Deal program was an economic failure that likely stretched a usual downturn in the economy (albeit a bad sharp one) into a depression that the US did not truly emerge from until after FDR was dead. Roosevelt’s formula of substituting government programs for a normal business recovery did not create the high unemployment. FDR's idea of extracting tax dollars from individuals and corporations to fund government programs such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was a bad idea. The WPA hired workers to pick up trash, cut down trees, and build roads, bridges, and schools- but even though the government was 'creating jobs,' in reality they merely transferred jobs from the productive private sector to the inefficient public one. For more yet, see this site.

This myth does not die though. In Michigan, our government has dramatically increased the amount of money that it spends on two 'job creation programs' that are the centerpiece of Granholm's economic recovery program for Michigan. In fact, during her campaign, these two 'job creation programs' featured prominently, and obviously people bought this myth, because she won re-election over a real job creator in Michigan, Republican Dick DeVos. As michiganliberal.com put it "Granholm announced the creation of funding for new companies that will help diversify our economy and keep people and ideas in this state," buying into the myth that the government can tax productive companies and then somehow create jobs with that money.

In reality though, government can not create jobs, it can only force people from productive private sector jobs to inefficient public sector jobs. An article in the Detroit Free Press described how tax dollars in Michigan (where taxes have been steadily been raised) were used by two state programs, the Venture Michigan Fund and the Michigan 21st Century Investment Fund, to try to help bring new jobs to Michigan. These programs were created because Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm and liberal state lawmakers believed that they could create jobs using the power of the government. The result?

According to the research, Michigan's government spent 116 million dollars and to create 40 new Michigan jobs over the last two years - at the cost of almost $3 million per 'created' job! What's even worse, liberals and government has reached the wrong conclusion- they think that this is a success (the headline of the Free Press article- 'State Venture Capital Funds Start Paying Off'). Thank you to the Michigan Taxpayers Association for staying on top of this one.

So what sent me off on this long rant and prompted me to spend 30 minutes coming up with this post? Those annoying commercials I have to listen to that are narrated by Jeff Daniels! The Michigan Economic Development Corporation has a whole library of video's that they run on TV and the radio that they have put together to tout the myth of government creating jobs. The most annoying of these are the ones that claim that the MEDC is doing great things when it uses massive amounts of taxpayer money to lure environmental companies here, and by doing so somehow creates jobs. Michigan is now fully behind the myth of government job creation- even worse, it is buying in more and more into the more specific myth of green jobs.

John Stossel destroys this myth in his recent article "The Fallacy of Green Jobs." I'm going to pull from it and edit it below:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a great twofer pitch: "green jobs." It sounds like a winner. Politicians always promise that their programs will create jobs. The fallacy is the same in every case: Even if the program creates jobs building bridges or windmills, it necessarily prevents other jobs from being created. This is because government spending merely diverts money from private projects to government projects.

Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there. Pharaohs created thousands of jobs by building pyramids. Our government could create jobs by paying people to dig holes and then fill them up. Would actual wealth be created? Of course not. It would be destroyed. It's like arguing the hurricanes create jobs. After all, the destruction is followed by rebuilding. But does anyone seriously believe that replacing destroyed buildings creates wealth?

Look at Obama's plan- it wholeheartedly buys the myth. If "green jobs" make so much sense, the market will create them. They will be created by private entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are eager to profit from winning investments. The best ideas will rise to the top, and green energy will gradually replace coal and oil. If politicians were serious about creating jobs and cleaner technologies, they would step aside and let the free market go to work.

The last thing I want to leave you with is the Broken Window Fallacy, as spelled out by French economist Frederic Bastiat. He pointed out that a broken shop window will create work for a glassmaker, but that work comes only at the expense of the cook or tailor the shopkeeper would have patronized if he didn't have to replace the window. Government taxing tax money, cycling it through inefficient bureaucracies and vast overhead, and then trying to build things inefficiently that the market is not does not create jobs- it destroys jobs.

Need proof- during the Great Depression, FDR's unemployment rate hovered around 15%. And in Michigan, under liberal Democrat Granholm's administration and her government-jobs creation program, Michigan has lurched into a one-state recession and had it's unemployment rate climb from 3.7 to 7.2%.

In AfricaCommons:

To pick up on an earlier theme about the shift in "climate" for Western involvement in Africa, it is clear that there is a huge upswing in Western investor interest. I’ve been collecting some of the interesting stories and anecdotes and will share as time permits. Bloomberg is providing lots of coverage out of Nairobi now, and the Wall Street Journal has an Africa page that is well worthwhile. Clearly Western investors are playing "catch up" to the Chinese in some markets, but there remains a difference in the nature of Western private investment and Chinese operations. Likewise the Libyans, the Gulf States and and Iranians have moved more quickly than Western funds, but have some different objectives and approaches. See Nick Wadhams blog for some interesting observations on Chinese projects...[continue reading]

A report on methods to increase private capital flows to SSA stated:

The supply of assets is still very limited, and, in addition to the public companies already listed on stock exchanges, the number of private firms listed needs to be increased. In some cases, privatization of public assets offers the best avenue for increasing the supply of assets in the economy and attracting foreign investors. While foreign investment can play a valuable role in stimulating capital markets in Africa, the growth and stability of these markets will require the development of a healthy base of domestic investors. Pension reform and the promotion of mutual funds could encourage domestic investment in fledgling stock markets.

On the north end of Democrat Gary Peters 9th District, the story of two different Americas is clearly visible for everyone to see. One America is the America of capitalism and private-sector jobs, and the other America is of corporatization and public-sector jobs. One America is the bankrupt ruins of a $2 billion shopping and housing development, and the other America is the road construction workers dutifully ripping up and rebuilding a major road right in front of it.

Democrats like Peters believe that the best way to lead our nation back to growth and prosperity is to have the national government lead the way by having the national government borrow money from banks in the US and from lenders like China abroad and then use that money to build roads, bridges, schools, and public buildings. In this America, there is job growth and pay raises, assuming that you have the correct political connections to get the jobs and you belong to the labor unions that do business with the state. In this America, there is little accountability to customers and little money to be made by taking risks, increasing efficiency, or cutting costs- in the Democrats America, there is always a job for everyone willing to do the bidding of the state.

This America is the road construction that you see in the pictures and videos, and is something that Democrats like Gary Peters can rightly take credit for.

But there is another America out there, an America where jobs are increasingly scarce, investment funds are nonexistent, and pay cuts are the norm. In this America, increasing taxes, increasing regulation, and increasing uncertainty caused by a growing state presence in the marketplace has caused it to be less profitable to do business, has scared customers and investors, and has led to high unemployment and low job growth. The government is borrowing funds for their projects, and so businesses find it increasingly difficult to borrow money for their projects. Efforts to cut costs and increase efficiency are met by political leaders publicly speaking ill about your company, and it becomes increasingly difficult to meet the bottom line when the government forces the bottom line up and talks profits down.

This America is the abandoned and bankrupt building project that you can see in the pictures and videos, and this is also something that Democrats and Gary Peters can take credit for.

The two Americas meet at the 93-acre site on Telegraph Road near Square Lake Road in Bloomfield Hills. Bloomfield Park was once the symbol of booming private America- a place where citizens could work, buy products, and live. It now lies abandoned, naked steel girders and half-built looming structures, some seven stories tall, crumbling and rusting in front of construction work to rebuild the public road that goes past it. Its marble foundations and ambitious scale are the risks that America once took on itself, but at its feet now scurry the workers of the America that now safely puts its power in the hands of government officials.

But work continues on Telegraph road. Signs boldly advertise that the project was paid for by stimulus dollars voted for and signed into law by Democrats. Democrats like Peters point to this as a sign that his plan is working, and wants to be returned to office based on public works projects like these. That's the America that Democrats ultimately want- an America that is dependent on the state for jobs and income and growth while the private sector dies.

All video and picture was taken by me from my camera phone, after I snuck past security and risked my life walking through the dangerous ruins of America's once glorious past (pre-2008).

UPDATE: Thanks for linking!

Tomas Brandberg and Nima Sanandaji write:

Africa's real problem is the lack of private investment. According to the OECD, private capital flows to developing countries between 1990-97 exceeded $600 billion. However, only $10 billion of this amount went to sub-Saharan Africa of which $9 billion went to South Africa.
Africa is poor because most countries in the region lack the fundamental elements of a capitalist system: property rights, free markets, free trade and the rule of law. Africans are like everybody else, and ideas that did not work in China, North Korea and the Soviet Union will not work in Africa either. The blame for the present situation in Africa does not lie with capitalists. It lies with corrupt politicians, who have implemented bad economic policies, together with leftist intellectuals who convinced African politicians to implement anti-capitalist economic policies. The west is also responsible, by enforcing trade barriers. It is ironic that anti-globalization movements are frequently opposed to abolishing tariffs and import quotas.

via TCS

The UN's OSAA office reports that "...Remittances from Africans working abroad in the period 2000-2003 averaged about US$17 billion per annum virtually overtaking Foreign Direct Investment flows which averaged about $15 billion per annum during the same period...workers remittances boost disposable incomes, produce multiplier effects, and make education more affordable Private transfers are large and stable sources of foreign exchange for poor countries and are more likely to reach poor households than other capital flows. The average per capita remittance by migrants in developed countries is around US$ 200 per month. In the light of this it is becoming imperative that the cost of transmitting remittances needs to be reduced to allow African countries receive larger private capital flows..."
Via NextBillion

The Ft reports:

Gulf-based private and public equity fund managers have this year shifted some of their vast wealth from Asia and the Middle East/North Africa region to the world’s poorest region: sub-Saharan Africa. These portfolio flows to a half-dozen countries have been accompanied by direct investment in property and other sectors...The Gulf push into the sub-Sahara reinforces pioneer efforts, notably by Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal whose Kingdom Holdings created a $125m joint venture in 2004 with New York-based Zephyr Investment for African private equity. Its best-known success was a $20m stake in the pan-regional mobile provider Celtel, which was later acquired at a hefty premium by Kuwait owners. The prince has joined HSBC in a separate dedicated vehicle.
As petrodollars head towards these locations, western wealth advisers who have shunned them may re-examine their assumptions and consider participation a viable emerging market option.

From This is Africa ICT can stand on its own two feet:

In October of that year ITU held the “Connect Africa Summit” in the Rwandan capital, Kigali. The meeting brought together governments, the development community and, crucially, international investors, to discuss issues such as broadband infrastructure development and enabling policy. Over 1000 participants attended the meeting, which resulted in investment commitments totalling $55bn, to be spent over five years.
“Connect Africa was a big success,” says Mr Touré(SG of the ITU), stressing that much of this pledged investment is from the private sector, both domestic and international.
“This is money that the private sector wants to invest and make a profit, not give out to anyone or spend as part of corporate social responsibility.”

More here