Economics, Garrison Keillor and you

Now that the dreadful socialized medicine bill is being shelved, the state of our economy is appropriately front and center. Television's endlessly talking heads, blow-hard politicians, columnists of every persuasion, Harvard-educated (is that an oxymoron?) economists and even the woman on the street are all offering their opinions on the sorry state of our national economy. Just about everyone, however, avoids discussing the fundamental problem, which I shall do here, once again.

In a recent column, the liberal mayor of Lake Woebegone (Garrison Keillor) warned us that "jumping and yelling (Republicans) don't change the facts," which apparently are: the United States should feed, clothe and otherwise care for anyone on Earth who is unwilling or unable to care for themselves.

Mr. Keillor uses the tragedy in Haiti to point out that "great heaps of dead bodies are moved by front-loaders and dumped ... into open pits ... while (you and I live a decadent life) on enormous cruise ships sailing a hundred miles off (Haiti's) coast ..."

Apparently Keillor would have us close down and avoid all pleasurable activities, as long as any other humans are less fortunate than we. It seems fair to wonder if such sacrifice would also include dropping a curtain on his lucrative, entertainment shows.

Of course, Keillor's irrational, near-sighted, bleeding-heart opinion is predictable. In the rest of the rambling referenced column, the popular humorist supports socialized health care as a "basic right" and then criticizes churches for not agreeing with him. He forges bravely on, beating up on Sarah Palin because she's "perky," then pokes fun at Mayor Rudy Giuliani as "strutting up to the podium" (which a learned person, such as Mr. Keillor, should know is not the same as "lectern").

Mr. Keillor winds up his piece of liberal propaganda by stating that "government is in the hands of realists and in the end we shall prevail." One can only wonder what medication the folksy performer is abusing. In fact, our government is in the irresponsible hands of elitist socialists, whose dangerous objective seems to be an increase in the size and power of central government, while further enriching their personal power, wealth and prestige.

Of course, Keillor's incoherent opinions offer no solutions to our pressing economic problems. Indeed, they seem to essentially suggest spending money we don't have on pie-in-the-sky, warm and fuzzy social programs, which will only further exacerbate our financial dilemma. Others hold lively debates about the effect of the president's stimulus programs or the need for tax cuts; none, as far as I can tell, are addressing the underlying cause of our economic malaise and looming collapse. It can't be said too often, or in too many places: No economy can succeed nor long endure unless it is based on the production and sale of things. Put in another way: An economy based on services is a house of cards. And that, dear reader, is where these United States are living today.

We're presently upside down in more than just home mortgages. The ratio of services to producers is way out of whack. According to some studies, about 70 percent of us are employed in services, although that is the percent of the workforce that should be producing things.

Our nation will survive if, and only if, we return to a powerhouse of production, such as we were in the 1940s. We desperately need farmers, miners, carpenters, metal workers, machinists, engineers, scientists, mechanics, shoemakers, sewing machine operators, assembly line workers and others that directly contribute to products needed here at home and that can be sold to other nations.

Then - and this is a particularly difficult part of the solution - our government must work to make it possible for us to compete for sales on an open, world market.

In plain and painful language, that will almost surely involve paying our workers less than they have become accustomed to, so that the price of goods will drop and become competitive.

The bright side is that although we earn less, the cost of goods produced is reduced, so our money goes further. We're therefore not significantly worse off than before, which is clearly better than being out of work without unemployment handouts.

Yes, we must redirect our national effort to production rather to services, but that seems nearly impossible to accomplish. We now have a populace that is more motivated to get an MBA from some fly-by-night college rather than to learn a useful trade in a technical school. Our government should be using all of its abilities to direct young persons into productive lines of work, while simultaneously encouraging domestic ore mining (e.g., coal, iron, copper) and oil production, along with a resurgence of industries such as metals, farming, shipping and other heavy industry.

The unpleasant bottom line is that: We either bite the bullet and switch as quickly as possible from a nation of services to one of producers of marketable materials, or our economy will continue to deteriorate - perhaps precipitously and disastrously.