Beating Back Obamanomics
It's raining, pouring, economic fallacies by the hour, followed by a flood of horrible policy that is driving us ever further into economic depression. The regime in charge has really gone nuts, revealing itself as both deeply ignorant and horribly evil.
We find ourselves facing the horror of what has always been the Achilles heel of the left wing: its abysmal ignorance of economic science. The ideological tendency has gone from Keynesianism to outright socialism in a matter of a few weeks. And the trajectory seems to be accelerated mainly by the logic of the interventionist cycle. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (69)
John
The Republicans loss of all credibility these past 8 yrs is in my opinion the biggest reason why the economy is quickly tumbling down the rabbit hole. Politicians afterall make political decisions so is it naive of all of us to expect something different?
Published: March 6, 2009 8:19 AM
Bruce Koerber
Thursday, March 05, 2009
How Do We Prepare For The Coming Ideological Change?
What we have to realize is that the equilibrium forces of the economy are infinitely greater than the ephemeral and illusory powers of the ego-driven interventionists.
Our greatest challenge is not to resist the advance of socialism and fascism but to educate people about classical liberalism, about Austrian economics, and about the entrepreneurial spirit inherent in all human beings to seek the truth. This prepares the way for the ideological change that is coming.
The economy is our helper. Its equilibrium forces will wipe away these corrupt ego-driven interventionists with ease. We want to make sure that the free flow of information that occurs in an unhampered market is made easier by an insistent demand for it by the people around the world.
What can we do to stimulate the demand for the freedom to get information about classical liberalism and Austrian economics? Whatever those things are that stimulate the demand, that is what we should be doing!
If so inclined, send me your ideas about what would stimulate the demand for the freedom to learn more about classical liberalism and Austrian economics.
Published: March 6, 2009 8:40 AM
ed smith
Obama should be given a new name. He should be called "Obamao" after the glorious Mao Tse-Tung of China.
Published: March 6, 2009 8:50 AM
Horst Muhlmann
Back in 2001 (before 9/11), I was telling people that if the Republicans wanted to win in 2008, they'd have to nominate an Anti-Bush. In other words, someone who was pro free market and not afraid to be critical of Bush.
If the Republicans want to reagain credibility, they have to be willing to repudiate Bush and equate Bush and Obama.
When discussing the economy with people, I refer to Bush and Obama as "Barak Bush" and "George W. Obama."
Published: March 6, 2009 9:27 AM
rockysci
"The encouraging thing — and perhaps this too was inevitable — is that the right wing is getting its act together."
A-ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! You're a clown.
Seriously, I came to this site hoping to find an alternative economic viewpoint, but all I've found are clowns. If you want to be taken seriously, please refrain from these statements. Along with statements that Obama is socialist Chairman Mao. If anything, Republicans are the party of kow-towing to their leaders, like Chairman Moo...Rush Linbaugh.
Published: March 6, 2009 9:42 AM
Magnus
We find ourselves facing the horror of what has always been the Achilles heel of the left wing: its abysmal ignorance of economic science.
Ignorance? Or do they know exactly what they are doing?
Published: March 6, 2009 9:44 AM
Mark Knutson
I think its too soon to see signs that the republicans 'get it'. They always talked a good line about fiscal prudence when they were not in power.
Even the liberals expressed concern about borrow and spend when bush was in office--its the cynical exercise of a minority party simply advocating the opposite of whatever the majority is doing.
rockysci--Just read a mencken book about your ilk.
I say this in all seriousness--I am interested in what the end game is after hyperinflation. We are an enlightened minority, but the 'sea of morons' will cleave to obama more strongly the more he makes things worse, and I see a crash and burn as inevitable.
So, I will be casting around a bit for histories of the austrian hyper-inflation--how people coped, how it was resolved.
Published: March 6, 2009 9:58 AM
greg
Here is how the system works:
Our housing market has slowed as overspeculation in 4 housing markets reversed.
The government announces a stimulus plan.
Our housing comes to a standstill as the buyers are waiting for the specifics of plan to see what benefits would come their way.
The government passes the plan.
Our housing market comes to a dead stop as buyers wait for the date they get a government credit.
The government allocates the funds.
No movement in housing as buyers are confused if they qualify for funds.
Now, due to pent up demand and affordability of housing, the housing market will start to recover on its own as the buyers come back to the market without the aid of the stimulus package.
The problem is the housing market will recover in spite of the stimulus plan, but the government will take credit for the recovery and the cycle will repeat itself in the future.
Published: March 6, 2009 10:17 AM
Tim Kern
Mr. Rockwell asks, "Where were these people during the last eight years of Bush's misrule?"
Partisans always back those of their own party, regardless the policy. (Remember when President Clinton wanted to "privatize" Social Security, and all the Republicans said it was stupid... until President Bush had the same program, and the partisan positions reversed?)
Published: March 6, 2009 10:29 AM
Matt R.
Divided government works best. Period.
Published: March 6, 2009 10:31 AM
AC
Less government is what I'm hoping for. But in the interim, I'll opt for divided.
Published: March 6, 2009 10:51 AM
Nate
I think it best not to frame this as a Right vs. Left issue. When free market advocates say things like "The encouraging thing — and perhaps this too was inevitable — is that the right wing is getting its act together.", it definitely does not help the cause. Such sentiments only obscure the hypocrisy of the Right.
I understand Lew qualifies his statement. But as far as I'm concerned, both parties are intellectually, morally, and economically bankrupt. That is the point I'd like to see driven home.
Published: March 6, 2009 11:16 AM
Stephanie
We'll continue to remain in an economic predicament as long as there are fools who fail to place blame on both parties.
Published: March 6, 2009 11:26 AM
Stephen Grossman
>Mises....said that socialism in all its forms cannot accommodate any economic development beyond the hunter-gatherer stage.
Multiculturalists and environmentalists like socialism because of that!
Published: March 6, 2009 11:28 AM
AC
Stephen said:
"Multiculturalists and environmentalists like socialism because of that!"
Referring to socialism as eventually degenerating to hunter-gatherer societies.
Well they like hunter-gatherer societies from a distance. After they get a good taste of what hunter-gatherer living off the land is really like, they reject it entirely...or many of them starve, get killed by wild animals, die from poor living conditions in non-temperate climates, die at 35 from lack of good medicine, etc.
I actually wish more socialists would try hunter-gatherer living before critiquing capitalism. We'd end up with a lot less socialists....one way or another.
Published: March 6, 2009 11:45 AM
Inquisitor
"Seriously, I came to this site hoping to find an alternative economic viewpoint, but all I've found are clowns. If you want to be taken seriously, please refrain from these statements. Along with statements that Obama is socialist Chairman Mao. If anything, Republicans are the party of kow-towing to their leaders, like Chairman Moo...Rush Linbaugh."
No, you came to have your ignorant viewpoints confirmed, and not demolished. If you can't handle the intellectual onslaught, then leave. No one has a need for intellectual minnows such as yourself.
Published: March 6, 2009 12:22 PM
Mark Knutson
"I understand Lew qualifies his statement. But as far as I'm concerned, both parties are intellectually, morally, and economically bankrupt. That is the point I'd like to see driven home."
From where I sit, Lew has been extremely clear that he is talking about principles not political parties--being extremely critical of republicans and democrats.
I think some people just have trouble getting their minds around the idea that there are political views not represented by either party right now.
Published: March 6, 2009 12:47 PM
AV
rockysci: "I came to this site hoping to find an alternative economic viewpoint...Republicans are the party of kow-towing to their leaders, like Chairman Moo...Rush Linbaugh [sic]."
Welcome to the site. Now we politely ask you to leave.
Published: March 6, 2009 12:47 PM
AV
Inquisitor's response to rocky said it better than I, and thus my posting was redundant.
Published: March 6, 2009 12:50 PM
Franklin
greg, that was very organized, straightforward and logical. Three cheers.
I suspect the scholars on this site can reconcile your view (obvisouly based on experience and history) with other "stimulus" efforts and effects since the dawn of this nation.
Most troubling is that with each stimulus plan, the intrusion of the "state" is broader, based on its incremental acquisition of power. I often hear the national debt stated (ostensibly to ameliorate the fear factor) in terms of GDP, or of the budget itself, or of some other variable.
In my humble and obviously amateurish view, the debt grows on a per capita basis, and the tax burden grows on a per capita basis. I've applied no science to my intuition -- government spending = government intrusion in my life.
And I view my economic freedom and personal freedom, within the confines of the U.S. Bill of Rights, as one and the same.
Again, from a political insider view as well as man-on-the-street view, your summary is apt, and accurate.
Regards,
F.
Published: March 6, 2009 1:08 PM
greg
As I was listening to CNBC, Evelyn Davis was on air and it occured to me that the real problem is most supporters of a free market approach do not lay out the solution to the public. In a very short interview, she hit at the heart of the problem and laid out the mechanics of a market solution.
By government supporting financials, we have brought them all down to failing bank's level. If we would have let the troubled banks fail, the remaining banks would be stronger as they pick off the good assets.
Re-establish the uptick rule! Short sellers are forcing markets lower.
Government support of mortgages has led to expansion of defaults and she laid out how to open these markets back up.
Again, the free market approach is the best path, we just need to take a lesson from Ms Davis and sell it to the public by bringing it down to a level we all understand.
Published: March 6, 2009 1:10 PM
Franklin
Indeed, saw Davis earlier on the same. She is always quite entertaining and theatrical , to boot. But I think her mouthy personality and style is one of either "love her" or "hate her." I'm in the former, for now. : )
Published: March 6, 2009 1:26 PM
Brian
"Re-establish the uptick rule! Short sellers are forcing markets lower."
How can a state mandated 'uptick rule' be part of a 'free market approach'?
Published: March 6, 2009 1:26 PM
Magnus
How can a state mandated 'uptick rule' be part of a 'free market approach'?
It's called "doublethink."
For some people, Orwell's 1984 was not a cautionary tale. It was an instruction manual.
Published: March 6, 2009 1:30 PM
filc
Ahh doublespeech! How I forgot it so!
So applicable to today's political arena.
Published: March 6, 2009 1:36 PM
Nate
Mark,
Good point. I accidentally switched the goal posts there didn't I? First I was talking about Left vs Right and then switched to political parties. A little careless on my part.
Published: March 6, 2009 1:49 PM
rockysci
Thanks for all the warm welcomes :)
As for CNBC, they are more interested in protecting investors than they are at protecting the free market. The truth is that the banks are backrupt/insolvent. Not only that but the insurance on the credit effectively doubled down (more like 30 times downed) on the debt. Investors don't want the banks to go backrupt because they'd be effectively SOL. They just want the bailout...they are blackmailing the economy with threats of "We're too big to fail". Investors took the profits, now they want to pass on the risks.
Lastly, as for CNBC, the more you do the exact opposite they (Cramer, Kudlow and Fast Money douchebags) espouse, they more likely you'd be rich.
Published: March 6, 2009 2:23 PM
Mark Knutson
Nate--not to worry. Its just that I get into this all the time with liberals when I post in newspaper blogs--the difference being that you understood my point and they never will.
I will say something about Rush advocating smaller government and they come back to me with "Rush is divorced, so where are your Republican Values now?" Then they sit back, satisfied that they have cleared the intellectual path to socialism.
Published: March 6, 2009 2:27 PM
David Bratton
"They always talked a good line about fiscal prudence when they were not in power."
They were also a lot more reasonable when they were in control of Congress but not the White House.
Published: March 6, 2009 2:45 PM
Joe
Personally, I think the right has finally come to their senses and started to back what Dr. Ron Paul has been saying for years. Their massive spending abroad and on national defense is in many ways no different than the massive domestic socialist policies that we are currently seeing from the left. What I would like to see is more credit given to people like Dr. Paul for calling it correctly but we will never hear that from either side of the political spectrum.
Published: March 6, 2009 2:46 PM
rockysci
Thank you JOE!!!!
Defense speding is spending too!!! How come the right never complains on the fact that we spend more in defense than the rest of the world combined. As someone from the left, I too am worried about governmental spending. I too am worried about the Kenesian economic policies that Obama is taking. However, when I come to this blog and read Obama is a socialist and the right is getting their act together...well you lose credibility. Lastly, Rush advocating for smaller gov't is a joke. Where was his smaller gov't ideas while the Bush admin began spying on Americans. I believe his response was...if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't worry. Please Rush advocates for a small gov't about as much as he advocates for small meals.
Published: March 6, 2009 3:13 PM
Franklin
The male talking heads on CNBC are generally aging and unattractive. The female ones are generally hot as hell.
In non-financial ways, CNBC subsidizes my viewing preferences.
Published: March 6, 2009 3:23 PM
Mark Knutson
Its remarkable that someone can go to mises.org and sort of not notice what's going on all around the web site, and not notice that spending lots of money on wars and defense is not exactly what this outpost of "The Right" is in favor of.
This is a point I have already made once in this very thread--that many people have neither the inclination nor the intellectual energy to discover that libertarian isn't a fancy word for "Republican."
I will also note that I am really enjoying my recently purchased "America's Pyhrric Victories" purchased from this very site. Also reading the Mencken book, where the intellectually slothful apparently haven't improved their lot much since 1925.
Published: March 6, 2009 3:36 PM
Mark Knutson
Also, to state the obvious, its yet another disappointment that PBO is not apparently in any particular hurry to wind up our two foreign wars-- something that seemed awfully urgent to him when Bush was running the show.
Published: March 6, 2009 3:41 PM
Franklin
"Defense spending is spending too!!! How come the right never complains on the fact that we spend more in defense than the rest of the world combined.... "
Because the so-called "right" has no issue with high defense spending.
And that is why the opinion writers here are, as a general rule, not the "right."
The dichotomy is, as Nat and Mark remind, not useful.
Do the representatives/policy makers/executors in government spend more or less than their predecessors? There's always been one answer regardless of "side of the aisle."
Published: March 6, 2009 3:45 PM
Verloc
Haha...Lew making overtures to the wingnuts. The accompanying caricature graphic and the characterizing of the enemy as "horribly evil" had me thinking I had surfed to Limbaugh by accident.
Demonizing the enemy may win you friends with the rabid fools that marched in lockstep to the current mess, and get you some attention, but will not change an open mind.
It is laughable that Lew is already leaving the door ajar for the corrupt, stinking shell of what remains of the Republican party. Rational conservatives for too long have believed they could contain the evangelical and racist elements of the party, but it is becoming more evident that that wing is all that remains. Their ficsal conservatism has been proven to mere rhetoric for the rubes. Are we Austrians to be taken in, too? "Getting their act together"? REALLY?
We will have more luck with the Blue Dogs than those clowns.
Published: March 6, 2009 3:52 PM
Mark Knutson
QED....
Published: March 6, 2009 4:16 PM
Jack's Pipe
"We will have more luck with the Blue Dogs than those clowns."
Nonsense. Most of the people I know are "Republican conservatives," and nearly every one I've talked to is VERY open to Austrian views, they just never hear them. Some people's intellectual curiosity just doesn't take them beyond Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and lead them to an anti-spending philosophy. Liberals (the blue dogs are just liberals in conservative-leaning districts) in my experience are hostile to Austrian economics because they are in favor of gov't spending.
Published: March 6, 2009 4:24 PM
Timothy
I'm with Magnus in his first comment above. Far too many people start with the assumption that the Right and the Left are earnestly trying to mend the general economy, and that their support for various bailout programs is merely good-natured bumbling.
Perhaps Lew assumes this good faith as a rhetorical device because accusations of ignorance are more palatable to the undecided than accusations of deliberate mendacity. But I know he doesn't completely discount the realpolitik view, because just yesterday he published a candid essay by Bill Anderson arguing that the political classes are deliberately strangling the economy for the enduring power it brings.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson240.html
Published: March 6, 2009 4:26 PM
Mark Knutson
Its important to keep in mind that the marxian view of history is that the capitalist sytem must be destroyed before Heaven on Earth can be implemented. Those who believe this are compelled to hasten this destruction--and certainly many in government have these beliefs.
Also, the problem I have with many conservative talk show hosts is that they tend to be Republican cheerleaders, supporting war, federal reserve intervention, mercantilism, and deficit spending. I feel Rush is not quite as beholden to the party, but libertarianism is not their belief system.
Published: March 6, 2009 4:32 PM
Franklin
I think Verloc's opening is pointed and correct, as Lew's use of pejorative ("evil") is not only unfortunate, but offensive. And Republicans have never been consistent friends of liberty, as far as I can see.
Nevertheless, Verloc's "racist" charge is akin to standard leftist bomb-throwing without regard to a sad history. The membership of BOTH parties and the "see skincolor first and the person afterward" has been a failing among many voters in spite of affiliation.
The red-lining, gerrymeandering, Jim Crowe-endorsing disgrace came from many politicians, R & D. I tire of the "racist" charge against the Republican party. It's intellectually dishonest and illogical. Yes, I know you were mentioning only a wing of the party, but it's cheap.
By the same token, I've also heard, in person, many so-called friends explain that the Republican party is "evil." But Lew said it was the Dems that were "evil"....
The "is-too / is-not" facial contortions amplify from the two sides.
Evil-schmevil.
Not useful.
Published: March 6, 2009 4:53 PM
Time for the Straighjackets
Obama hasn't realized that the Fed's tools are shot and the Fed is hopelessly trying to rebuild from the casino down.
What can you expect from a guy who gave British PM Gordon Brown DVDs of American movies like Star Wars and The Sound of Music?
Obama is looking more and more like a chump who actually believes it is all just smoke and mirrors.
The Republicans know enough to know it's a bit more. They are finding out how much more.
We have a self-deceived ignoramus in charge.
Straightjacket time in Washington.
Published: March 6, 2009 5:03 PM
pbergn
Excellent article - sad but true...
Published: March 6, 2009 6:27 PM
Eric
Rockysci,
I just have to laugh at when people like you come here and think we are ditto head republicans or even Bush conservatives.
If you believe that Lew really thinks the right has come around, you really don't understand Lew. He fully understands that the right simply talks like libertarians when they get kicked out of power, but act exactly like democrats when they are IN power.
Lew is not being fooled. Those of us who know him understand what he means, but if Limbaugh says something right once in a while, we don't call him an idiot - this time. But we realize that he will change his tune the moment HIS people regain power - if they ever do.
And Obama isn't even trying to hide that he is a socialist. But so what? Who in DC is NOT a socialist - except for a handful like Ron Paul. Mao was more than a teensy bit socialist, and nobody here is saying Obama is a full blown commie like Mao or Stalin. But he talks like a New Dealer, and they were very clearly socialists who were in love with Uncle Joe from Russia.
As for you, please let us believe you are intelligent and don't remove all doubt with your silly posts. Calling people like Lew a clown is pretty, well, clownlike.
Now go away and invest in some stocks.
Published: March 6, 2009 8:45 PM
Morgan
Rockysci-
I hope you enjoy and can focus on the teachings of Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt and the other ground breakers while you visit. They have been very enlightening and overall a pleasing experience for me. Good luck on your journey
Published: March 6, 2009 9:17 PM
newson
greg says:
"Re-establish the uptick rule! Short sellers are forcing markets lower."
wrong on both counts. every covered short-seller must buy back to realize profits. (naked short-selling is a different kettle of fish). short sellers only increase liquidity and decrease volatility.
markets are going lower because shares are overpriced. earnings are collapsing and p/e's are still double what they were at the market's bottom in 1982.
Published: March 6, 2009 9:21 PM
P.M.Lawrence
"Ludwig von Mises in 1920, however, added something special and new to the critique of socialism. He said that socialism in all its forms cannot accommodate any economic development beyond the hunter-gatherer stage."
Actually, it can probably function - that is, not collapse by itself without outside pressure - as far as a "palace economy", which is where a smaller command economy is being carried and subsidised by a subsistence economy since subsistence economies still work even after the hunter-gatherer stage. There are concrete examples of palace economies, e.g. the Celts who had artisans supported as clients at aristocratic courts rather than by trade, or monasteries in the Dark Ages that kept learning and advanced skills going with the products of their lands when the cash economy had collapsed. Elements of that kept the USSR going as long as it did.
AC, hunter-gatherer societies are a lot better than you describe. What you describe is typical of peasant societies that have to carry an elite, but hunter-gatherer societies and peasant societies without an elite generally only face that in bad years (at least once a decade, typically). Between bad years, living is easy. If it weren't, population would fall more until the better years provided enough resources to recover from the bad years.
Published: March 6, 2009 10:07 PM
Nate
Ever since we've kinda gone off on a tangent about left/right/dem/repub/liberal/conservative I feel compelled to keep it going haha. I just kinda want to shortly share my journey to Austrian economics. Up until September and the first TARP, I was content to leave the words of the economic "experts" uncontested. I had always been interested in politics and had been watching both the Republican and Democratic debates with interest. Ron Paul stuck out to me as different than the rest. Also, a couple of my close friends were actively campaigning for him. I can remember thinking that his economic arguments made sense but couldn't get over the fact he was challenged by every economist/professor I had listened to on TV, read in the paper, or taken in college. When the initial crisis hit it became obvious that the Austrians knew exactly what they were talking about and all the other economists were operating with the wrong ideas. So I started reading Paul, Schiff, Hayek, Rothbard, and Hazlitt (I'll read Mises but people say to read others first). Anyway, I've never felt more intellectually fulfilled in my life. I feel like I at least have a chance at understanding economic happenings now. And I couldn't be happier with this site and its members. I know this is a ramble but whatever. So what's the point of this? Well, we've found ourselves talking about left vs right and the words "liberal" and "conservative" have been mentioned. I still consider myself a liberal. I don't care that the word has been redefined to mean something different in today's lexicon. I plan to stick with it and reclaim it for its proper definition. I'm a liberal like Jefferson, Paine, etc.
Published: March 7, 2009 2:02 AM
K Ackermann
GDP, on average, has increased more under democratic rule than republican rule, so I don't know why they are labeled the ignorant ones.
I think you are mistaking republicans as conservatives. They are nothing of the sort. They are corporatists, and be very careful when you assist their agenda, because freedom has no place in it.
I too think our current economic policies are terrible, but the irony is that the corporatist version of the free market has messed things up so badly that our options are limited.
We either have to rescue everyone, or flush it all down the drain. If you sat in the oval office, would you make the call for the latter?
Published: March 7, 2009 7:25 AM
Franklin
K. writes, "GDP, on average, has increased more under democratic rule than republican rule, so I don't know why they are labeled the ignorant ones."
A quibble, K., though I appreciate your comments. "Under democratic than republican rule" is difficult to prove, and I'm not sure it's useful anyway. Is democratic rule when a Democrat is President? Or is it when the legislature is comprised of more Democrats than Republicans? Or is it when the State executive/legislative branches have more D's than R's (since the States, in spite of the nonsense of the last 70 years, still wield much power and influence in local economies)? Or does it include when a law is passed that is endorsed by most republicans but the democrat executive signed it (as happened in the Clinton years a few times)? Or was it when Reagan signed spending budgets that made a mockery of his small government speeches?
Assigning credit for GDP growth or contraction to one "party" is impossible. I will insist this, however, until somebody can prove me wrong -- government spending (at all levels combined) has grown steadily, D or R notwithstanding, per capita for 200 years. And government spending = government intrusion.
Your point is well taken about the holder of the Oval office. Most citizens, I surmise, want him to rescue everyone. Now doing that for the short term is achievable. Difficult but achievable. Doing that for the long term... now there's the tricky part.
Published: March 7, 2009 9:55 AM
fundamentalist
K Ackermann: "GDP, on average, has increased more under democratic rule than republican rule, so I don't know why they are labeled the ignorant ones."
GDP is not a good measure of growth because it includes state spending which accounts for about 40% of GDP (the feds take about 20%). So all the state has to do is send more and GDP increases.
The state cannot enable the economy to grow. It either gets out of the way and lets the free market work or it hinders economic growth, but it cannot assist growth. So there is no cause/effect relationship between which party is in office and economic growth.
Attributing economic growth to the political party in power is like crediting the rooster for the rising of the sun. It's a popular myth government makes the economy grow. As far as I know, only libertarians understand it's a myth, which means that 99% of the country believe the myth to be true.
Published: March 7, 2009 10:43 AM
Paul
What we don't need is false hopes of there being a resurgence in free-market thinking. Defense of free markets by the likes of Buchanan is no more encouraging than Reaganomics; it reeks of partisanship.
Let's not be deceived by such superficial posturing by those who oppose the administration not because the administration is wrong, but because that's what the opposition does.
This is not to say that the article is right-wing propaganda. But we should give credit only when it is due.
Published: March 7, 2009 12:23 PM
Paul
What we don't need is false hope of there being a resurgence in free-market thinking. Defense of free markets by the likes of Buchanan is no more encouraging than Reaganomics; it reeks of partisanship.
Let's not be deceived by such superficial posturing by those who oppose the administration not because the administration is wrong, but because that's what the opposition does.
This is not to say that the article is right-wing propaganda. But we should give credit only when it is due.
Published: March 7, 2009 12:24 PM
IMHO
It's only my opinion, but the Republican change of heart is too little too late. We are on a runaway train, and this administration is going full throttle.
When this train derails, I don't know that there will be any pieces left for the Republicans to pick up.
Published: March 7, 2009 12:40 PM
ed smith
Julias Ceasar campaigned on a platform of change. After winning the favor of the majority, he converted Rome from a republic into a dictatorship.
Published: March 7, 2009 1:14 PM
fundamentalist
IMHO: "...I don't know that there will be any pieces left for the Republicans to pick up."
Republicans are no better. Does anyone think policy would have been different under McCain? There was hardly any difference between McCain and Obama. Republicans oppose Obama now because they are in the minority and that's all they know how to do. But had McCain won, we would have witnessed a continuation of Bush's efforts to promote socialism. No president since Johnson has advanced socialism as much as Bush did, and all the while proclaiming himself to be pro-free market. Democrats may be socialist, but Republicans are socialist-lite and more dangerous than Democrats because Republicans pretend to care about capitalism.
Published: March 7, 2009 10:28 PM
Yuma, Yuoniah Gi Mato
"Socialism crushes human rights, builds the state, impinges on the liberty of conscience, and breeds social, cultural, and economic degeneration." Sounds like Capitalism to me...ie: Own the Government, Crush the Rights and Liberty of The People
Published: March 8, 2009 5:21 AM
fundamentalist
Yuma: "Sounds like Capitalism to me...ie: Own the Government, Crush the Rights and Liberty of The People"
You're thinking of the socialist definition of capitalism in which corporations buy the government. Of course that is a straw man. Socialists never could debate true capitalism and maintain their dignity or their illusions.
Published: March 8, 2009 8:26 AM
Fred
Is it not Obombanomics and is he not the Obamatsnuami?
Published: March 8, 2009 11:30 AM
Ned Netterville
As a voluntaryist, (a.k.a., pacifist anarchist), witnessing the sterile efforts of government officials desperately trying to "stimulate" the economy is an encouraging picture--viewed in the right, long-term light.
Most Americans believe that government is the only institution that can accomplish any number of desirable objectives on their behalf, and the cost to them in taxes and regulations is evidently acceptable. Who but the federal government, they would ask, has the power and authority to explore outer space, eliminate segregated schools, protect the nation's food supply, secure us in our freedoms, stimulate an entire economy, and so on. Some of the problems Americans face today are even be too big for the federal government alone to fix, and will require world-size government to deal with such problems as global warming and climate change, the policing of near outer space, the rapid depletion of the oceans' fisheries worldwide, a global recession, and so forth, No individual nor non-governmental enterprise can begin to address issues of such enormous magnitude. Only government can do it, is the belief of most Americans, and only government of sufficient size.
Inherent in this thinking is the immoral concept of getting something for nothing, or at least receiving government benefits of greater value than what one is willing or required to pay for them in taxes. As long as Americans believe this is possible--believe in government--the most strictly limited government will grow, constitutional or any other impediments to the contrary notwithstanding.
Ludwig von Mises, was among the wisest men--if not the wisest--of the 20th century. Unfortunately, he thought anarchy was a naive concept; that the free market needed government to punish those who would disrupt peaceful human exchange by initiating force or fraud. On this crucial point I believe, dare I say it here, Mises erred. For government itself must first initiate force in order to collect the taxes upon which all governments depend. As wise as he was, I don't think Mises was as smart as Jesus who opined that a bad tree (government, because of its use of force to collect taxes) cannot bear good fruit (protection of the free market).
The futile efforts of the federal government to stimulate the economy may serve to free some minds of the only-government-can-do-it heresy. And as the economy sinks, doubts may also be cast on President Obama's ability to walk on water.
Published: March 8, 2009 11:55 PM
IMHO
Hi Fundamentalist,
I hope you're doing well.
I did not mean to imply that the Republicans were any better. It's just that there has been all this talk in the media about how Republicans and Conservatives must change their ways in order to get back into office and effect change.
My point was simply that it may be too late to change.
Published: March 9, 2009 3:58 AM
newson
hey fundamentalist & imho:
now you're both on the same post as ned netterville, have you read his paper "jesus of nazareth - illegal tax protestor"?
i found it fascinating.
Published: March 9, 2009 9:40 AM
SailDog
Rockwell is no better than the people he criticizes. I have read the garbage he has written on waste and if that is representative of how he thinks he is not worth reading.
Published: March 9, 2009 11:53 PM
fundamentalist
Newson, No I haven't read it. Do you know of a good web site to download it from?
Published: March 10, 2009 8:07 AM
newson
to fundamentalist:
here's the link for the pdf. i'd like to give ned a plug. he's produced an interesting essay.
http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html
Published: March 10, 2009 9:08 AM
Ned Netterville
Thanks for the kind words, Newson.
Published: March 10, 2009 9:20 PM
Ned Netterville
Thanks for the kind words, Newson.
Published: March 10, 2009 9:20 PM
Ned Netterville
Nate said, "Anyway, I've never felt more intellectually fulfilled in my life. I feel like I at least have a chance at understanding economic happenings now. And I couldn't be happier with this site and its members."
Nate, I can relate. I feel much the same way you do. The first academic subject I really liked in school was Econ 101 when I got to college. I then took all the econ courses I could handle, accumulating many more hours in econ than in my English major. In all of those courses I never heard the name Ludwig von Mises mentioned. Money & Banking was my favorite course, but I don't recall that it even discussed how M&B influence the trade cycle--boom-bust. About ten years out of college I was introduced to libertarianism through THE FREEMAN magazine, which at the time under the leadership of Leonard Reed was probably Mises leading publisher. Anyway, I envy you because I think you, like me, will come to treasure his books as some of the most influential writing you will ever read. My first of his books was SOCIALISM, and I trembled as I witnessed him utterly demolish every scrap of socialism's intellectual foundation. HUMAN ACTION was even more tantalizing, but some of it was difficult. So, Bon Voyage. You have embarked on a soul-satisfying adventure.
Published: March 11, 2009 10:27 AM
Matt
"Beating Back Obamanomics"
Nothing of the sort will be done.
The only person in Washington that makes sense is Ron Paul for he explains why the Federal Reserve should be abolished.. We are facing a moral issue of Theft through Legislation. As long as this issue is not understood in the minds of men and through legislation then all other discussions are fruitless and lead nowhere.
The moral-economic issue fell off of a cliff in 1913 and it is still falling no matter all of the Left and Right, Republicans and Democrats wailings' this will not be resolved until this moral catastrophe of our time is. The end will come and then splatters as the morally corrupt system of Theft hits the ground. Only then will it be acknowledged what great mistakes were made and a new beginning will commence... Don't hold your breath on that one though.
This of course will take some time, it has already been falling for almost 100 yrs. none of us may be alive when the end comes but it will come. Institutionalized Theft is not the way for a free society to prosper.. The Federal Reserve and Fractional reserve Banking with the aid of the Internal Revenue Service will ensure disaster ahead.
The corrupt thinking that created The Federal Reserve is still very much alive and active and all corrupt political power is being harnessed to keep it so. Will the Dark Ages return? The chances are almost 100%.
Published: March 15, 2009 12:25 AM