Or this: If I can’t own nuclear ballistic missiles, then neither can the government.

Billary probably thinks like the influential French historian Fernand Braudel who thought the market is controlled by the largest corporations in the world. Braudel’s history is great for the amazing detail it includes, but you have to steer clear of his socialist conclusions. He defines capitalism as the largest multinational corporations and free markets as letting those corporations do what they want. He has no sense of consumers having any freedom whatsoever; corporations dictate to us what we want and how much we will pay for it. So by Billary’s definition of the market, it’s obvious that the state needs to have more power relative to the market.

Pundits need to make her assumptions about markets clear when writing about her ideas. It will help readers/viewers see her for the socialist she is.

Billary probably thinks like the influential French historian Fernand Braudel who thought the market is controlled by the largest corporations in the world. Braudel’s history is great for the amazing detail it includes, but you have to steer clear of his socialist conclusions. He defines capitalism as the largest multinational corporations and free markets as letting those corporations do what they want. He has no sense of consumers having any freedom whatsoever; corporations dictate to us what we want and how much we will pay for it. So by Billary’s definition of the market, it’s obvious that the state needs to have more power relative to the market.

Pundits need to make her assumptions about markets clear when writing about her ideas. It will help readers/viewers see her for the socialist she is.

What a marvelous idea! I wish I had thought of it. That would make the support of a gargantuan military in the United States completely impossible.

It’s too bad that it’s such an unpopular attitude. From Nation, State and Economy: “The supply of weapons did not call forth the demand, but rather the other way around.”

I once heard Hillary say that instead of “trickle-down economics” that she would like to see “trickle-up economics”. : )

Granted, shifting power between government and the market is a scary prospect, but as long as we’re calling her “Billary” and a socialist, it’s noteworthy that Bill Clinton was the only US president to reduce the size of the government and the government budget in something like 30 years. Not to mention the bait and switch he pulled with the labor unions on NAFTA. CEO’s of some large international banks have lauded him for his economic policy’s free market leanings (in practice, not in the rhetoric). I am more inclined to believe Hilary would run populist and act as a free-market proponent. As libertarians, we would be lucky to have Bill again.

Andrew: “it’s noteworthy that Bill Clinton was the only US president to reduce the size of the government and the government budget in something like 30 years.”

He passed the largest tax increase in the nation’s history. That helped balance the budget, but so did huge productivity gains in the private sector, which caused the economy to grow enough to overcome the dead weight of the tax increases. A fast growing economy, especially with inflation, also generates huge amounts in tax revenue.

Remember Hillary’s universal health coverage? It got slapped down by a Republican Congress.

Politicians get too much credit for the economy. The only good they can do is to get out of the way. Anything else hinders the economy.

Fundamentalist,

I’m a little confused about your feelings concerning the Clintons. You say politicians should get out of the way of the economy, yet your posting appears to indicate approval of Hillary’s universal health care plan and the way Bill handled things.

Would you please clarify your position for me?

Thanks.

David said:

“It doesn’t matter whether you like trickle down or trickle up economics, the fact that economic progress is slowed to a trickle is the real problem.

Exactly. Sometimes I marvel at the progress that has been made DESPITE government impediments. But then I realize how much more progress could have been made over the past 100 years without government. It’s hard to imagine, really. Who knows how many social and economic ills would now be history if markets had been allowed to flourish to their true potential. And imagine how much further ahead we’d be in health care, genetic engineering, nanotech, space flight–everything. These statists never stop to look at things from that perspective. If they did, they’d realize that all their coercive policies designed to ‘fight poverty’ and ‘improve quality of life’ have been having the exact opposite affect.

How does one balance the power between corporations and government by growing government when, the larger the government gets the more power the corporations have over it? The whole concept of trying to balance the two shows a complete lack of understanding of the relationship between the two.