What is a free society? What is patriotism? What does it mean to serve your country? These are all questions with various answers. However after hearing what Rahm Emanuel said in an interview recently about Obama's plan for a "Universal Citizen Service" or a "Citizen Army" the quote "A patriot must always be an guard to protect his country from the government" comes to mind. Obama has actually suggested and hinted at reinstating millitary conscripton. That is right, Obama has, not directy said but has hinted at, reviving a draft like program for the millitary! Rahm said "Citizenship is not an entitelment program...it comes with responsibilites." Oh really Mr. Emanuel? Where does it say that those "responsibilites", which seemingly arise simply from BEING BORN,are to serve the interests of Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel?! Emanuel says it will serve to give Americans a "common experience." I thought that experience was supposed to be liberty and freedom, not the experience of being forced into millitary service by the government. He also talks about a "sense of service." Service? We are meant to serve the government? Since when are the citizens of a free country meant to serve, against their will, at gun point or by compulsion, the government? What exactly are we entitled to by the government? They let us live? They give us the privledge of paying taxes? It is nice to know that no matter what our opinion is of a war or millitary action we or obliged to fight in that cause for our "own good." How benevolent of them.
As expected Emanuel talked about serving our country, coming togther as one and all the other blind Amerian patriotism jargon to try to get listeners to swallow his heeping pile of bullshit. He is trying to say that if you do not serve in the millitary than you are being Un-American. Last time I checked being American meant believing in liberty and freedom of choice. Since when is it against America to stand for the anti-state anti-government views of its Founders? There is a citizen army Mr. Emanuel, and its called the people and the 2nd Amendment. Sadly this army is meant to protect WE the people from YOU the government in case you try to force us to serve your will. Besides liberals like Emanuel have been pushing for gun control laws and regulations for years; now suddenly they want us to be armed? Make no mistake this has nothing to do with defense. It has everything to do with taking away guns from private citizens and arming more government sanctioned soldiers. They simply want more control over our lives and to tell us how to live.
Many proponents say that "it's not a draft really. Its only 3 months of basic training." I have a few problems with that. First problem is ummmmm the use of Force! You would have no choice but to join. All Americans between the ages of 18-25 would be forced to be a part of this, even if they did not want to. What gives Obama the right to do this? Simply because he believes it's in our best interest? Second problem is believing the government. Only for 3 months? Not going to be used unless needed? I was also told Iraq had WMD's. I was told the Patriot Act would be used responsibly and only against "terrorists". I was told that the Coast Guard would never be sent overseas. I was told that the National Guard would only protect our boarders here at home. I was told that the War in Iraq would be quick. I was told that creating NAFTA would decrease illegal immigration greatly by the year 2020. I was told that more spending on education would help children. Was any of this true? NO! Not at all! So excuse me if I do not trust the government with even more power. Three months may turn into six months. Which may turn into millitary service, which may turn into "Universal Citizen Service" personale over in Iraq.
The fundamnetals of a free society mean the absence of the use of force. Patriotism means believing in the values your country stands for and being willing to defend them, especially against the government. Patriotism is NOT doing whatever the state wants us to do, and being forced to serve their wishes. Freely joining the armed service is a wonderful thing. Freely entering into any contract is exactly what freedom is about. You are most certainly NOT obliged to join the millitary simply because you happened to be born in this country. The government is not a socail contract where certain rights are forfit simply for being alive. This sort of state servitiude is exactly what Hitler and Stalin preached. State first, the collective, the greater good, good of the nation. Isn't it funny how the collective and the state are entities that you always seem to have to work for the better of, yet are never apart of when your values or wants differ . The second your wishes do not coincide with the collective, you are branded a traitor, or un-patriotic. Frederick Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" talked about the trend towards totalitarianism. He wrote,
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
America needs to re-learn this lesson very quickly. I am by no means saying Barack Obama is going to be the next Hitler. However a lot of his pro-state ideas were espoused by leaders like Hitler and Stalin. This is a very dangerous road that Obama and his ilk are treading down. The government was meant to protect our rights, not to subjigate its citizens to its will. By forcing its citizens to join any millitary conscription program it is declaring that its will is above its citizens and those who are against being forced into it are somehow not being "good citizens." As Aristotle once said "It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen." America, its time to start being good men.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
-Friedrich Hayek
Here are some links to Obama's plan for a "Universal Citizen Service."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ
http://wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s13.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77875
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The Year in Review:2008
Not exactly the catchiest title in the world I know, but this is simply a reflection on 2008. Anything and everything about 2008. Hopefully it won't get to heavy, just some of my own personal thoughts on this year. Not trying to shake the heavens or get anyone thinking too deeply here; its the hollidays after all! We saw many firsts in 2008, first time the DOW lost 777 points in one day; the first black president was elected to the white house in a landslide. The first time the government bailed out both Wall Street and the auto industry in the same year. First time gas reached over 4$ a gallon. The first time we had a serious female contender for the white house, in Sen. Hillary Clinton. The first time an athlete won 8 gold medals in one Olympics, the Super Hadron Collider was finally operational and, this is probably one of the most important ones for me, the PlayStation 3 FINALLY released an exclusive title I could be proud of in Little Big Planet! Of course there were many more big firsts, I'm sure many of which I am unaware of. However with 2008 drawing to a close, and my inevitable 2 day hangover that seems to always accompany the new year, I think it is important to say goodbye to 2008 the right way, and get hammered.
We have seen many great things this year. Michael Phelps winning 8 gold medals at the Olympic games was the highlight for me. We all seemed to take a break this summer. Wall Street had not yet totally crashed, the auto makers weren't down on their knees in their 5,000$ Armani suits asking for a bailout and we all seemed to come together for a couple of weeks and rejoice in the glory that is competition. Of course my Cleveland Indians couldn't get back to the playoffs, and the Browns were an abysmal failure...again, but for those few weeks in August we all cheered on our country's athletes. After the games, everything seemed to go down hill. The economy, the bailouts, the debt etc etc etc. If you have a pulse and have not been living under a rock the past year I'm sure you are all well aware of this. So this begs the question, what does this all mean? Where do we go from here?
Well, and this my sound cynical, I have very little optimism about where we are headed. I see the policies enacted by congress, the politicians grabbing more power, and Bill Cowher deciding not to come to the Browns next year as all signs that we are in big trouble, especially for those who are partial to football teams from northeastern Ohio. Most people do not want to change the game, they simply think that they can manage the game better. In fact with all the recent firings of many NFL head coaches maybe the leaders could look to the NFL for some guidance. In that line of work, if you suck you don't get to stick around; well unless you are the head coach of the Buffalo Bills. Simply look at how the Atlanta Falcons turned their team around, now that my dear readers is "change." However, with what I see our nation doing, ie more of the same and in areas of change its change for the worse, I am not optimistic at all. Maybe this will spark a counter movement where the libertarian wing of the conservative party picks up some steam. So in a way I'm glad to see 2008 end, but I'm also very concerned for 2009 and beyond. What if Wall Street fails again? What of the auto makers ask for more money? What if there is another terror attack? What if the Browns don't get Eric Mangini or another quality head coach? What if the PlayStation 3 can't deliver on its promises for its games in 2009!? These are all questions that keep me up at night tossing and turning in my luxury 10x12 dorm room.
However these are also questions that I can not answer, no one can really. We just have to do our best. Fearing these things is not practical. As Ovid once said "It is foolish to fear that which can not be avoided." So embrace the new year and all the trials and tribulations that are bound to come with it, political or otherwise. Yes I know its trite, unoriginal and overused advice; but I see so many people not listening to it. I intend to embrace this new year with my eyes open, and ready to tackle its problems. Of course my ability to do so won't be untill sometime on January 2nd or 3rd. Happy New Year everyone; peace and goodwill.
In Liberty (and beer),
Mr. Jefferson
"That government is best, which governs least."
-Thomas Paine
We have seen many great things this year. Michael Phelps winning 8 gold medals at the Olympic games was the highlight for me. We all seemed to take a break this summer. Wall Street had not yet totally crashed, the auto makers weren't down on their knees in their 5,000$ Armani suits asking for a bailout and we all seemed to come together for a couple of weeks and rejoice in the glory that is competition. Of course my Cleveland Indians couldn't get back to the playoffs, and the Browns were an abysmal failure...again, but for those few weeks in August we all cheered on our country's athletes. After the games, everything seemed to go down hill. The economy, the bailouts, the debt etc etc etc. If you have a pulse and have not been living under a rock the past year I'm sure you are all well aware of this. So this begs the question, what does this all mean? Where do we go from here?
Well, and this my sound cynical, I have very little optimism about where we are headed. I see the policies enacted by congress, the politicians grabbing more power, and Bill Cowher deciding not to come to the Browns next year as all signs that we are in big trouble, especially for those who are partial to football teams from northeastern Ohio. Most people do not want to change the game, they simply think that they can manage the game better. In fact with all the recent firings of many NFL head coaches maybe the leaders could look to the NFL for some guidance. In that line of work, if you suck you don't get to stick around; well unless you are the head coach of the Buffalo Bills. Simply look at how the Atlanta Falcons turned their team around, now that my dear readers is "change." However, with what I see our nation doing, ie more of the same and in areas of change its change for the worse, I am not optimistic at all. Maybe this will spark a counter movement where the libertarian wing of the conservative party picks up some steam. So in a way I'm glad to see 2008 end, but I'm also very concerned for 2009 and beyond. What if Wall Street fails again? What of the auto makers ask for more money? What if there is another terror attack? What if the Browns don't get Eric Mangini or another quality head coach? What if the PlayStation 3 can't deliver on its promises for its games in 2009!? These are all questions that keep me up at night tossing and turning in my luxury 10x12 dorm room.
However these are also questions that I can not answer, no one can really. We just have to do our best. Fearing these things is not practical. As Ovid once said "It is foolish to fear that which can not be avoided." So embrace the new year and all the trials and tribulations that are bound to come with it, political or otherwise. Yes I know its trite, unoriginal and overused advice; but I see so many people not listening to it. I intend to embrace this new year with my eyes open, and ready to tackle its problems. Of course my ability to do so won't be untill sometime on January 2nd or 3rd. Happy New Year everyone; peace and goodwill.
In Liberty (and beer),
Mr. Jefferson
"That government is best, which governs least."
-Thomas Paine
Saturday, December 20, 2008
America Embraces John Maynard Keyens
Things run in cycles I suppose. The 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries saw a move towards liberalism and for the most part embraced relatively free markets. The bulk of the 20th Century however saw an explosion of statism and big government. It was not untill the Berlin Wall fell near the end of the century that most of Europe began to liberalize. Now, nearing the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, it seems as though we are headed back to the times of central plannng that people such as Hitler and Stalin were such big fans of. What makes me believe this is so? Well simply look at the actions taken by the United States government and the majority of the people voting in a liberal radical like Barack Obama. I do not believe that America will take a similair path socially that Germany and the Soviet Union did, and I by no means beleive that Obama would engage in such actions. However, I do think that he will hinder, and do so severly, our economic freedom. And simply be proxy this will to some degree affect our social freedom as well.
America has a problem, a spending problem. For some reason the answer to our economic problems proposed by most economists, analyists, "experts" and government officials is to spend. We spent too much, our economy is in a hole so the answer is....more spending?? I've heard some analyists actually say things such as how Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke debacing our currency is "helping us." I've also heard some analysist say that they agree that spening more now will be a temporary fix but hey thats a problem to deal with later on. This is exactly the problem. Most politicians, such as presidents, can not see past their own term nor do they care what happens past their own term in office. They only care about rhetoric and being re-elected.
Simply look at the root causes of almost all of our problems. We spend too much over seas to maintain our empire, billions every month. We spent to much to gurantee home ownership now banks, financial institutions and lenders are bankrupt and people have been evicted. Our economy is a service heavy economy where we do not produce or make anything. The answer to our problems is not more spedning, it is producing and saving. Our parents and grand parents did not use credit to buy clothing, or auto mobiles. They saved and produced untill they could afford those items. Credit is not all bad, sometimes loans and credit are necessary. However saving and producing have to be the main factor or else the economy becomes unstable. This process of government spending to "stimulate" the economy comes directly from Keyens. It was an absurd idea in the 1930's and time has not sweetened it.
Peter Schiff made a great anaology in his book "Crashproof: How ot Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse." He said "Imagine there are 3 people stranded in an island. One is Japanese, one is Chinese and the last one is American. They decide to divide the work load in order to survive. The Japanese person hunts, fishes and forages for food. The Chinese person builds the shelter and provides other needs that come with housing, such as chairs, tables etc. The American is assigned the role of eating. The modern economists sees this and says, hey good thing the American is there. He makes everything go! Without him the two other men would have nothing to do with their food and shelter! This is absurd of course. The Chinese and Japanese men will soon realize that the American simply consumes and does not produce. Soon they will stop providing for him. This is how the American economy is structured."
Mr Schiff is absolutely right. We keep borrowing, spending and consuming like this and soon the countries that loan us money will stop doing it, they will realize we can not afford to pay them back and that they can make just as much money selling to their own citizens. China has over 1billion people, America has only around 300 million. Then we will have to tax our own citizens into the dirt and print more of our own money, which will destroy us even more. This tactic of government spending and big government policies is what is bankrupting America. 700 billion for Wall Street, 17 billion to the auto industry, billions over seas, billions in domestic spending, high corporate taxes, high income taxes, high property taxes etc etc etc. Now Obama promises a "Second New Deal." You know what deal I want and a lot of Americans want? The deal where we get to keep our money and are not punished for being successful. The deal where we tackle big government and get the government off our backs and out of our pockets! That deal is something that has not been tried in quite a long time, and I believe it is over due. This idea that politicans can simply give us things is insane. Simply because they pass legislature or pass a bill does not guarntee anything. This rhetoric about job creation, education and anything else in the grab bag of promises these politicans promise is nuts. Politicans and the government DO NOT create jobs, hell they do not create anything! Business owners create jobs. Risk takers who want to make money are the innovators and creators not politicans. They promise and declare to give us all these goodies and they can not do a damn thing about any of them. They are banking on the fact the we believe that by simply declaring or wishing something we can get it. The question should be "should the government do this, what can I do for myself?" Not "What can the government do for me?" Americans need to become more self reliant. However in light of the recent election I am not optimisitic that any real "change" is coming. Rock the vote indeed.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned."
-Milton Friedman
America has a problem, a spending problem. For some reason the answer to our economic problems proposed by most economists, analyists, "experts" and government officials is to spend. We spent too much, our economy is in a hole so the answer is....more spending?? I've heard some analyists actually say things such as how Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke debacing our currency is "helping us." I've also heard some analysist say that they agree that spening more now will be a temporary fix but hey thats a problem to deal with later on. This is exactly the problem. Most politicians, such as presidents, can not see past their own term nor do they care what happens past their own term in office. They only care about rhetoric and being re-elected.
Simply look at the root causes of almost all of our problems. We spend too much over seas to maintain our empire, billions every month. We spent to much to gurantee home ownership now banks, financial institutions and lenders are bankrupt and people have been evicted. Our economy is a service heavy economy where we do not produce or make anything. The answer to our problems is not more spedning, it is producing and saving. Our parents and grand parents did not use credit to buy clothing, or auto mobiles. They saved and produced untill they could afford those items. Credit is not all bad, sometimes loans and credit are necessary. However saving and producing have to be the main factor or else the economy becomes unstable. This process of government spending to "stimulate" the economy comes directly from Keyens. It was an absurd idea in the 1930's and time has not sweetened it.
Peter Schiff made a great anaology in his book "Crashproof: How ot Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse." He said "Imagine there are 3 people stranded in an island. One is Japanese, one is Chinese and the last one is American. They decide to divide the work load in order to survive. The Japanese person hunts, fishes and forages for food. The Chinese person builds the shelter and provides other needs that come with housing, such as chairs, tables etc. The American is assigned the role of eating. The modern economists sees this and says, hey good thing the American is there. He makes everything go! Without him the two other men would have nothing to do with their food and shelter! This is absurd of course. The Chinese and Japanese men will soon realize that the American simply consumes and does not produce. Soon they will stop providing for him. This is how the American economy is structured."
Mr Schiff is absolutely right. We keep borrowing, spending and consuming like this and soon the countries that loan us money will stop doing it, they will realize we can not afford to pay them back and that they can make just as much money selling to their own citizens. China has over 1billion people, America has only around 300 million. Then we will have to tax our own citizens into the dirt and print more of our own money, which will destroy us even more. This tactic of government spending and big government policies is what is bankrupting America. 700 billion for Wall Street, 17 billion to the auto industry, billions over seas, billions in domestic spending, high corporate taxes, high income taxes, high property taxes etc etc etc. Now Obama promises a "Second New Deal." You know what deal I want and a lot of Americans want? The deal where we get to keep our money and are not punished for being successful. The deal where we tackle big government and get the government off our backs and out of our pockets! That deal is something that has not been tried in quite a long time, and I believe it is over due. This idea that politicans can simply give us things is insane. Simply because they pass legislature or pass a bill does not guarntee anything. This rhetoric about job creation, education and anything else in the grab bag of promises these politicans promise is nuts. Politicans and the government DO NOT create jobs, hell they do not create anything! Business owners create jobs. Risk takers who want to make money are the innovators and creators not politicans. They promise and declare to give us all these goodies and they can not do a damn thing about any of them. They are banking on the fact the we believe that by simply declaring or wishing something we can get it. The question should be "should the government do this, what can I do for myself?" Not "What can the government do for me?" Americans need to become more self reliant. However in light of the recent election I am not optimisitic that any real "change" is coming. Rock the vote indeed.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned."
-Milton Friedman
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Big 3 Bailout Failout
I believe it was the 9th Commandment that said "Thou shalt always have the Big 3 in operation." Of course I may be remembering that incorrectly. This latest proposal however would surely make one believe that it was written in scripture or in stone that the Big 3, which consists of GM, Ford and Chrysler, must never be allowed to fail. I have a very simple question, why? Why not let these companies fail? Besides the amount of many they are asking for, over 20 billion $ will only keep them afloat until February anyway. All three of these companies are losing around six billion $ a month. Yes that's correct, six billion a month! What good is 20 billion? There are a few very simple routes that the government and the CEO's of these companies could pursue. First, let them go bankrupt. Pretty simple really. Now bankruptcy does not mean death. For example, Kmart, Continental Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Fruit of the Loom, Texaco, Toys R Us etc all declared bankruptcy. However these companies didn't disappear. They were simply restructured, reorganized and put under new and better management. So this rhetoric about millions of jobs being lost is most certainly not true. Bankruptcy can be a good thing. It shows people that they are doing the wrong thing. Henry Ford had plenty of failures before he started Ford Motor Co. What if Ford had been bailed out after his first failure? Failure teaches people, and those who have the drive to succeed can learn from their mistakes. That is how progress is made. Sometimes failure is and should be an option so that we can learn from it and become better people because of it.
Another option is to cut short term costs. This is the option that most appeals to me. There is one simple way to cut short term costs; tell the union, in this case the UAW union, that their contracts are null and void. Yes that is correct, tell the UAW one of the strongest unions in the country that their contracts are being suspended. Now the economy as a whole is definitely having a huge negative effect on the Big 3. However I believe that the long term cause of the problems of the Big 3 consist of two major problems. These problems are the UAW and the absolute idiocy of the management of these companies. First though is definitely the UAW. Let us examine this further. How come companies such as Honda, Toyota, Nissan and others are not asking for a bailout? If it truly is just the economy's fault, claims Ron Gettelefinger head of the UAW, than all these other car companies should be at risk as well. Nissan, Honda and Toyota have all recently opened up new plants here in America. In fact Handa just recently hired over 900 Americans to work in one of their car manufacturing plants. So obviously the economy is not the only cause of the Big 3's problems. The main problem is the UAW. According to Daniel J. Ikenson, Assistant Director of the Cato Institute, "The average compensation for an hour of work at GM is $74. While at Toyota it's about $47." In fact economist Dr. Peter Morici has said that "Honda pays an average $18.41 and hour." He also argues that along with the absolute insane wages and benefits that the Big 3 offer, in order to make money they have to cut corners. Cutting these corners screws us, the consumer. They use cheaper materials for things such as upholstry, and it shows. The quality of GM car is nowhere near the quality of a Nissan or Handa car. Much of this is due to the outragious and I would argue criminal demnads made by the UAW.
For example, the UAW has entities called Jobs Banks. What are Jobs Banks? They are buildings that the UAW forced the Big 3 to create where laid off, or ex Union workers for any number of reasons go to get paid. What do they do there? Nothing, absolutelty nothing. Many of them simply sit around and watch TV or read magazines. Many times they have the continue to pay these idel employees for as many 4 years after they are let go. This actually made headline news on 20/20. I will link at the end of this article to that story and anyone who is interested can watch it. It is only around 5 mintues long.
A final option that they could pursue is trying to sell their company to a successful company. However with the power of the UAW hindering these companies, they may be hard pressed to find a company who is willing to take them over so quickly. They could attempt to weaken the union but doing this is easier said than done. The CEO's are also to blame for this. They made cars that consumers did not want. They also have a less effecient assembly line than companies such as Honda or Toyota. Handa and Toyota CEO's didn't waste money on private jets either. These CEO's need to be held responsible for their actions and their mismanagement of these companies.
The simple fact of the matter is this; no company is "to big to fail" and that the American tax payers should not be on line to bail these companies out. With the recent Wall Street bailout, the biggest redistribution of wealth in this country's history, these auto companies are thinking that maybe now they can grab a slice of that pie. To them I have one thing to say, the buck stops not here with the taxpayer but with YOU; deal with your own problems.
-In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
-Frederick Bastiat.
Here are a few links to the video sources I quoted in the article
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73c-1YwEPH4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPJFWWprMo
Another option is to cut short term costs. This is the option that most appeals to me. There is one simple way to cut short term costs; tell the union, in this case the UAW union, that their contracts are null and void. Yes that is correct, tell the UAW one of the strongest unions in the country that their contracts are being suspended. Now the economy as a whole is definitely having a huge negative effect on the Big 3. However I believe that the long term cause of the problems of the Big 3 consist of two major problems. These problems are the UAW and the absolute idiocy of the management of these companies. First though is definitely the UAW. Let us examine this further. How come companies such as Honda, Toyota, Nissan and others are not asking for a bailout? If it truly is just the economy's fault, claims Ron Gettelefinger head of the UAW, than all these other car companies should be at risk as well. Nissan, Honda and Toyota have all recently opened up new plants here in America. In fact Handa just recently hired over 900 Americans to work in one of their car manufacturing plants. So obviously the economy is not the only cause of the Big 3's problems. The main problem is the UAW. According to Daniel J. Ikenson, Assistant Director of the Cato Institute, "The average compensation for an hour of work at GM is $74. While at Toyota it's about $47." In fact economist Dr. Peter Morici has said that "Honda pays an average $18.41 and hour." He also argues that along with the absolute insane wages and benefits that the Big 3 offer, in order to make money they have to cut corners. Cutting these corners screws us, the consumer. They use cheaper materials for things such as upholstry, and it shows. The quality of GM car is nowhere near the quality of a Nissan or Handa car. Much of this is due to the outragious and I would argue criminal demnads made by the UAW.
For example, the UAW has entities called Jobs Banks. What are Jobs Banks? They are buildings that the UAW forced the Big 3 to create where laid off, or ex Union workers for any number of reasons go to get paid. What do they do there? Nothing, absolutelty nothing. Many of them simply sit around and watch TV or read magazines. Many times they have the continue to pay these idel employees for as many 4 years after they are let go. This actually made headline news on 20/20. I will link at the end of this article to that story and anyone who is interested can watch it. It is only around 5 mintues long.
A final option that they could pursue is trying to sell their company to a successful company. However with the power of the UAW hindering these companies, they may be hard pressed to find a company who is willing to take them over so quickly. They could attempt to weaken the union but doing this is easier said than done. The CEO's are also to blame for this. They made cars that consumers did not want. They also have a less effecient assembly line than companies such as Honda or Toyota. Handa and Toyota CEO's didn't waste money on private jets either. These CEO's need to be held responsible for their actions and their mismanagement of these companies.
The simple fact of the matter is this; no company is "to big to fail" and that the American tax payers should not be on line to bail these companies out. With the recent Wall Street bailout, the biggest redistribution of wealth in this country's history, these auto companies are thinking that maybe now they can grab a slice of that pie. To them I have one thing to say, the buck stops not here with the taxpayer but with YOU; deal with your own problems.
-In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
-Frederick Bastiat.
Here are a few links to the video sources I quoted in the article
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73c-1YwEPH4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPJFWWprMo
Friday, October 24, 2008
Who Were the Best and Worst Presidents? Part II
Well if my list of the worst presidents didn't peak anyone's interest then hopefully my list of the 5 best will. I will also include another honorable mention list with some presidents who I liked, but had some major incidents in their presidency that keeps them from quite making the top 5. However every president on this list is a person I admire as being an honorable and decent man(Jackson is excluded of course because of his absolutely brutal treatment of Indians. However I do believe that at least for the people he represented he genuinely cared about them. This does not excuse his actions though). Most of them also followed Article II of the Constitution.
Top 5 Best Presidents. ( in no specific order yet)
-Calvin Coolidge (R)
This president exemplified what a president should be, not just professionally but personally as well. He restored honor and dignity to the office. As his biographer put it "he embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength." Coolidge lowered taxes across the board for all Americans. He also vetoed the proposed McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Bill of 1926, designed to allow the federal government to purchase agricultural surpluses and sell them abroad at lowered prices. Coolidge declared that agriculture must stand "on an independent business basis," and said that "government control cannot be divorced from political control." This man understood economics and that government involvement always leads to central control. Coolidge supported wages and hours legislation, opposed child labor, imposed economic controls during World War I, favored safety measures in factories, and even worker representation on corporate boards. Did he support these measures while president? No, because in the 1920s, such matters were considered the responsibilities of state and local governments. He knew that the use of force was not the correct way to bring about change. He was also very wary of the federal governments power growing and taking over the lives of individuals. His foreign policy was also superb. He was against joining the League of Nations because he viewed that it did not serve the nations interest. While he was not an isolationist, Coolidge was reluctant to enter foreign alliances. He understood that America's foreign policy should be "commerce and trade with all, but alliances with none." His character is exemplary and his policies helped a great many people. This man did not care about a legacy or making a spectacle. His nickname was "Silent Cal" because he believed in action, not rhetoric, and that individuals are better at planning their lives than the government. Americans were "cool with Coolidge" and he returned the favor.
-Grover Cleveland (D)
This presidents character and integrity were also exemplary. His domestic policies included intervening into the Pullman Strike of 1894, to keep the railroads moving. This made him unpopular with labor unions. He was also a fervent supporter of the gold standard; which shows he understood the evils of inflation. He was also a champion of classical liberalism and was steadfast in his beliefs. As one historian said "in Grover Cleveland the greatness lies in typical rather than unusual qualities. He had no endowments that thousands of men do not have. He possessed honesty, courage, firmness, independence, and common sense. But he possessed them to a degree other men do not." He did not reward his friends or allies with political positions. His appointment of positions were based on the merit of the individual and their competency. He was also a huge advocate of lowering tariffs. He understood that tariffs did nothing but protect uncompetitive businesses; and pass the cost on to American consumers. He also vetoed more than any president of his time. In 1887, Cleveland issued his most well-known veto, that of the Texas Seed Bill. After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, the Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. Cleveland vetoed the expenditure. In his veto message, he espoused a theory of limited government: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people." He understood that government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take away everything you have. His foreign policy is also noteworthy. Cleveland was a committed non-interventionist who had campaigned in opposition to expansion and imperialism. He refused to promote the previous administration's Nicaragua canal treaty, and generally was less of an expansionist in foreign relations. He set a standard of excellence that few presidents have even been able to attempt to reach.
-Warren G Harding (R)
The main plus for president Harding is his excellent handling of the panic of 1921 caused by WWI inflation. He also worked to repeal taxes, and abolished the excess profits tax during WWI. He had serious problems and scandals but he was an all around good president.
-Martin Van Buren (D)
Buren was another president who understood economics. He supported the repeal of tariffs and and was an advocate of free trade. He succeeded in setting up a system of bonds for the national debt. His party was so split that his 1837 proposal for an "Independent Treasury" system did not pass until 1840. It gave the Treasury control of all federal funds and had a legal tender clause that required (by 1843) all payments to be made in legal tender rather than in state bank notes. But the act was repealed in 1841. He understood that only payments in legal tender could fight the evils of inflation and simply printing money or taxing it was not the answer. In a bold step, Van Buren reversed Andrew Jackson's policies and sought for peace at home, as well as abroad. Instead of settling a financial dispute between American citizens and the Mexican government by force, Van Buren wanted to seek a diplomatic solution. Also, in August 1837, Van Buren denied Texas' formal request to join the United States. Van Buren gave a higher priority to sectional harmony than to territorial expansion. He was not a power hungry and land hungry leader who only sought to increase the governments power.
-Thomas Jefferson (DR)
Is it any surprise really? Well to be honest I was torn between putting Jefferson in the Best or the good honorable mention category.I respect Jefferson more for his philosophical and thinking prowess than for his presidency. He did unconstitutionally buy land from France in the Louisiana Purchase. The constitution did not specifically give him the right to do so. But he was one of the most influential Founding Father's and his presidency was one that advocated low taxes, and championed the idea of limited government republicanism. His work on the Declaration of Independence, and his contributions to the Constitution simply can not be overlooked. He had foreign policy victories and blunders. His victory of the Barbary pirates in North Africa showed that America would not be threatened or bullied into paying tribute to thugs. However his Embargo Act against Europe and his expansion of military control hurt the New England colonies economically. He also wanted to ban the slave trade entirely but had to settle with the compromise of 1808. His belief in small government, his writings and actions during the times before and during the War for Independence and his attempt to dismantle the National Bank stand as testaments to his character. Jefferson was by no means perfect; but his effect on American thought and history is so profound that to ignore it would be an ultimate disservice.
Good Honorable Mention Presidents
-Andrew Jackson (D)
Jackson had his problems; big ones. Jacksonian democracy is still screwing us today and pork barrel spending wqs his idea, not to mention the spoils system. I disagree with many aspects of Jacksonian democracy; aka more direct democracy. However as a president he did do many things that I viewed as positives. I am simply rating his presidency directly for what he himself did. What others around him did in his name; or what Jacksonian democracy was done to the country are not aspects I am arguing positivly for. I am simply bringing up the many positives he did while president. He vetoed the bill that would extend the charter of the National Bank and closed the treasury to them. Jackson was the last president to have this country debt free. He was an advocate of the gold standard and relative free trade. He did favor some protective tariffs and some other interventions that I disagree with. He actually fought in the War of 1812 and knew what it meant to lead. So why isn't he in the top 5 best? His absolutely brutal treatment of the Native Americans, his pork barrel spending and his view of democracy and the spoils system. The Trail of Tears is a huge black eye for this president.
-James Monroe (DR)
Monroe was a Democratic Republican who took a more hands off approach to the country. He receives similar praise to Jefferson and Madison for their economic views and their views on decentralized power; over the more highly centralized power of the Federalists. He did not do much, Monrovia was established in Africa as an attempt to send freed slaved back to their country but not much came of it. The fact that he did not meddle that much at all, plus his integrity and character make him a pretty decent president in my ranking.
-George Washington (N/A)
I honestly do not believe people today comprehend how great a man George Washington was. He is always right on that cut of great and good president with me. I just can not seem to be comfortable placing him in either category for a long time. He is probably the most important figure in American history simply due to his charcater and what this man did with his power. Almost all cases in history show that after a civil war, or a war for independence is over the military leader almost always refuses to give up power and tries to seize control. In fact many historians contribute the success of the American War for Independence and the success afterward to Washington voluntarily giving up power. Washington reluctantly ran for president and after his second term voluntarily left office. Washington also deeply distrusted political parties thinking that only conflicts and stagnation can come from them. Sadly he sided with Hamilton over Jefferson on economic affairs and his support of the central bank hurts him in my ranking. Washington also made it a point to stay out of the affairs of Europe. In 1793, the revolutionary government of France sent diplomat Edmond-Charles Genêt, called "Citizen Genêt," to America. Genêt issued letters of marque and reprisal to American ships so they could capture British merchant ships. He attempted to turn popular sentiment towards American involvement in the French war against Britain by creating a network of Democratic-Republican Societies in major cities. Washington rejected this interference in domestic affairs, demanded the French government recall Genêt, and denounced his societies. Under the Jay Treaty Washington also set up trade with Britain and ushered in a decade of prosperity between the two countries. The West Indies colonies were also opened up for American trade. Washington was a great leader and an even greater man, Many politicians praise George Washington without realizing that their actions would bring nothing but embarrassment and disdain from him if he were alive today.
-James Madison (DR)
Madison was a follower of Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans; so he receives similar praise to Jefferson. He was also one of the founders for the new Constitution. Madison also wrote the first 10 Amendments that would become the Bill of Rights. Along with Jefferson he protested the Alien and Sedition Acts. His personal accounts of the Constitutional Convention are some of the only accounts we have about these meetings.His authorship of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, his advocacy of republicanism and his drive to fight corruption are what make him a very able president. However he falls in the end because by 1815, he supported the creation of the second National Bank, a strong military, and a high tariff to protect the new factories opened during the war.
There are other presidents that I like, or dislike but these are the ones that I have the strongest opinions of at this time. Most presidents I can find things I like and do not like about them, but most do not have such a profound impact on me, this country and our history as the ones I have listed the past two entries. I still have a lot of reading to do on the history of our presidents though and this list may eventually change. All of our leaders were influential in their own ways, some more so on a large scale than others. The key, I believe is to look at how their policies affected people; not the letter by their name or the intention of their policy. Character is also important. Which of these men simply held office for the sake of power and which held office not do what they wanted, but held it in order to ensure that the people could do as they wanted.
In summary though the tally is 11 bad presidents and 9 good presidents. Of those 11 bad presidents 5 are Democrats and 6 are Republicans. Of the 9 good presidents 3 are Democrats, 2 are Republicans and 3 Democratic Republicans, can not really be listed as either. I suppose Jefferson, Monroe and Madison could go into the Republican category but they were not really "Republicans." And George Washington did not belong to any political party, another example of how smart this man was. So any claims about a partisan bias on my part towards one party or another I will claim are simply without any merit. I have made it abundantly clear that neither party is worth a damn. Up until around 1896 the Democrats were a good party but as the saying goes; all good things must come to an end.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
-Thomas Jefferson
Top 5 Best Presidents. ( in no specific order yet)
-Calvin Coolidge (R)
This president exemplified what a president should be, not just professionally but personally as well. He restored honor and dignity to the office. As his biographer put it "he embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength." Coolidge lowered taxes across the board for all Americans. He also vetoed the proposed McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Bill of 1926, designed to allow the federal government to purchase agricultural surpluses and sell them abroad at lowered prices. Coolidge declared that agriculture must stand "on an independent business basis," and said that "government control cannot be divorced from political control." This man understood economics and that government involvement always leads to central control. Coolidge supported wages and hours legislation, opposed child labor, imposed economic controls during World War I, favored safety measures in factories, and even worker representation on corporate boards. Did he support these measures while president? No, because in the 1920s, such matters were considered the responsibilities of state and local governments. He knew that the use of force was not the correct way to bring about change. He was also very wary of the federal governments power growing and taking over the lives of individuals. His foreign policy was also superb. He was against joining the League of Nations because he viewed that it did not serve the nations interest. While he was not an isolationist, Coolidge was reluctant to enter foreign alliances. He understood that America's foreign policy should be "commerce and trade with all, but alliances with none." His character is exemplary and his policies helped a great many people. This man did not care about a legacy or making a spectacle. His nickname was "Silent Cal" because he believed in action, not rhetoric, and that individuals are better at planning their lives than the government. Americans were "cool with Coolidge" and he returned the favor.
-Grover Cleveland (D)
This presidents character and integrity were also exemplary. His domestic policies included intervening into the Pullman Strike of 1894, to keep the railroads moving. This made him unpopular with labor unions. He was also a fervent supporter of the gold standard; which shows he understood the evils of inflation. He was also a champion of classical liberalism and was steadfast in his beliefs. As one historian said "in Grover Cleveland the greatness lies in typical rather than unusual qualities. He had no endowments that thousands of men do not have. He possessed honesty, courage, firmness, independence, and common sense. But he possessed them to a degree other men do not." He did not reward his friends or allies with political positions. His appointment of positions were based on the merit of the individual and their competency. He was also a huge advocate of lowering tariffs. He understood that tariffs did nothing but protect uncompetitive businesses; and pass the cost on to American consumers. He also vetoed more than any president of his time. In 1887, Cleveland issued his most well-known veto, that of the Texas Seed Bill. After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, the Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. Cleveland vetoed the expenditure. In his veto message, he espoused a theory of limited government: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people." He understood that government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take away everything you have. His foreign policy is also noteworthy. Cleveland was a committed non-interventionist who had campaigned in opposition to expansion and imperialism. He refused to promote the previous administration's Nicaragua canal treaty, and generally was less of an expansionist in foreign relations. He set a standard of excellence that few presidents have even been able to attempt to reach.
-Warren G Harding (R)
The main plus for president Harding is his excellent handling of the panic of 1921 caused by WWI inflation. He also worked to repeal taxes, and abolished the excess profits tax during WWI. He had serious problems and scandals but he was an all around good president.
-Martin Van Buren (D)
Buren was another president who understood economics. He supported the repeal of tariffs and and was an advocate of free trade. He succeeded in setting up a system of bonds for the national debt. His party was so split that his 1837 proposal for an "Independent Treasury" system did not pass until 1840. It gave the Treasury control of all federal funds and had a legal tender clause that required (by 1843) all payments to be made in legal tender rather than in state bank notes. But the act was repealed in 1841. He understood that only payments in legal tender could fight the evils of inflation and simply printing money or taxing it was not the answer. In a bold step, Van Buren reversed Andrew Jackson's policies and sought for peace at home, as well as abroad. Instead of settling a financial dispute between American citizens and the Mexican government by force, Van Buren wanted to seek a diplomatic solution. Also, in August 1837, Van Buren denied Texas' formal request to join the United States. Van Buren gave a higher priority to sectional harmony than to territorial expansion. He was not a power hungry and land hungry leader who only sought to increase the governments power.
-Thomas Jefferson (DR)
Is it any surprise really? Well to be honest I was torn between putting Jefferson in the Best or the good honorable mention category.I respect Jefferson more for his philosophical and thinking prowess than for his presidency. He did unconstitutionally buy land from France in the Louisiana Purchase. The constitution did not specifically give him the right to do so. But he was one of the most influential Founding Father's and his presidency was one that advocated low taxes, and championed the idea of limited government republicanism. His work on the Declaration of Independence, and his contributions to the Constitution simply can not be overlooked. He had foreign policy victories and blunders. His victory of the Barbary pirates in North Africa showed that America would not be threatened or bullied into paying tribute to thugs. However his Embargo Act against Europe and his expansion of military control hurt the New England colonies economically. He also wanted to ban the slave trade entirely but had to settle with the compromise of 1808. His belief in small government, his writings and actions during the times before and during the War for Independence and his attempt to dismantle the National Bank stand as testaments to his character. Jefferson was by no means perfect; but his effect on American thought and history is so profound that to ignore it would be an ultimate disservice.
Good Honorable Mention Presidents
-Andrew Jackson (D)
Jackson had his problems; big ones. Jacksonian democracy is still screwing us today and pork barrel spending wqs his idea, not to mention the spoils system. I disagree with many aspects of Jacksonian democracy; aka more direct democracy. However as a president he did do many things that I viewed as positives. I am simply rating his presidency directly for what he himself did. What others around him did in his name; or what Jacksonian democracy was done to the country are not aspects I am arguing positivly for. I am simply bringing up the many positives he did while president. He vetoed the bill that would extend the charter of the National Bank and closed the treasury to them. Jackson was the last president to have this country debt free. He was an advocate of the gold standard and relative free trade. He did favor some protective tariffs and some other interventions that I disagree with. He actually fought in the War of 1812 and knew what it meant to lead. So why isn't he in the top 5 best? His absolutely brutal treatment of the Native Americans, his pork barrel spending and his view of democracy and the spoils system. The Trail of Tears is a huge black eye for this president.
-James Monroe (DR)
Monroe was a Democratic Republican who took a more hands off approach to the country. He receives similar praise to Jefferson and Madison for their economic views and their views on decentralized power; over the more highly centralized power of the Federalists. He did not do much, Monrovia was established in Africa as an attempt to send freed slaved back to their country but not much came of it. The fact that he did not meddle that much at all, plus his integrity and character make him a pretty decent president in my ranking.
-George Washington (N/A)
I honestly do not believe people today comprehend how great a man George Washington was. He is always right on that cut of great and good president with me. I just can not seem to be comfortable placing him in either category for a long time. He is probably the most important figure in American history simply due to his charcater and what this man did with his power. Almost all cases in history show that after a civil war, or a war for independence is over the military leader almost always refuses to give up power and tries to seize control. In fact many historians contribute the success of the American War for Independence and the success afterward to Washington voluntarily giving up power. Washington reluctantly ran for president and after his second term voluntarily left office. Washington also deeply distrusted political parties thinking that only conflicts and stagnation can come from them. Sadly he sided with Hamilton over Jefferson on economic affairs and his support of the central bank hurts him in my ranking. Washington also made it a point to stay out of the affairs of Europe. In 1793, the revolutionary government of France sent diplomat Edmond-Charles Genêt, called "Citizen Genêt," to America. Genêt issued letters of marque and reprisal to American ships so they could capture British merchant ships. He attempted to turn popular sentiment towards American involvement in the French war against Britain by creating a network of Democratic-Republican Societies in major cities. Washington rejected this interference in domestic affairs, demanded the French government recall Genêt, and denounced his societies. Under the Jay Treaty Washington also set up trade with Britain and ushered in a decade of prosperity between the two countries. The West Indies colonies were also opened up for American trade. Washington was a great leader and an even greater man, Many politicians praise George Washington without realizing that their actions would bring nothing but embarrassment and disdain from him if he were alive today.
-James Madison (DR)
Madison was a follower of Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans; so he receives similar praise to Jefferson. He was also one of the founders for the new Constitution. Madison also wrote the first 10 Amendments that would become the Bill of Rights. Along with Jefferson he protested the Alien and Sedition Acts. His personal accounts of the Constitutional Convention are some of the only accounts we have about these meetings.His authorship of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, his advocacy of republicanism and his drive to fight corruption are what make him a very able president. However he falls in the end because by 1815, he supported the creation of the second National Bank, a strong military, and a high tariff to protect the new factories opened during the war.
There are other presidents that I like, or dislike but these are the ones that I have the strongest opinions of at this time. Most presidents I can find things I like and do not like about them, but most do not have such a profound impact on me, this country and our history as the ones I have listed the past two entries. I still have a lot of reading to do on the history of our presidents though and this list may eventually change. All of our leaders were influential in their own ways, some more so on a large scale than others. The key, I believe is to look at how their policies affected people; not the letter by their name or the intention of their policy. Character is also important. Which of these men simply held office for the sake of power and which held office not do what they wanted, but held it in order to ensure that the people could do as they wanted.
In summary though the tally is 11 bad presidents and 9 good presidents. Of those 11 bad presidents 5 are Democrats and 6 are Republicans. Of the 9 good presidents 3 are Democrats, 2 are Republicans and 3 Democratic Republicans, can not really be listed as either. I suppose Jefferson, Monroe and Madison could go into the Republican category but they were not really "Republicans." And George Washington did not belong to any political party, another example of how smart this man was. So any claims about a partisan bias on my part towards one party or another I will claim are simply without any merit. I have made it abundantly clear that neither party is worth a damn. Up until around 1896 the Democrats were a good party but as the saying goes; all good things must come to an end.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
-Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Who Were the Best and Worst Presidents?
This question has long been on my mind since I first was asked it back in high school by one of my government teachers. This article is mainly my own personal opinion based on my political philosophy but I will try to offer small explanations after each president that I list as either good or bad. I will try to cover the top 5 worst and 5 best presidents. I will also give a few honorable mentions of presidents if I can't quite place them in those two categories. I may alter this list as I learn more about each president but I will do a different entry, leaving this one here as a "my opinion at this time of my life" kind of bullshit. Well lets get started.
5 Worst Presidents (in so specific order yet)
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)
Many revere FDR as one of our nations best presidents. I however have the exact opposite opinion of this man. He was a manipulative, power hungry and corrupt individual. The stock market crash of 1929 would have been a short term recession if not for FDR's policies. Not to mention his executive order that placed Japanese Americans in internment camps, stole their property and robbed them of their freedoms and livelihoods during WWII. For the sole reason that their parents and grandparents just happened to come from the wrong country. There was no trial, investigation or hearing. No lawyers or anything for these innocent victims. He simply believed they "might be a threat." Absolutley disgusting. Now for his economic problems. Let me be abundantly clear about this The New Deal DID NOT alleviate the depression of the 1930's; it in fact made it worse. That is why the economy completely hit a low AFTER FDR started his programs in the 1930's. There was a second huge market hit in 1932 and it only got worse in 1934 and 1935 , which was FDR's fault. Just one of his many crimes was paying farmers not to grow food. He wanted to make sure farmers were still paid; people did not have money to pay them and the prices of goods were going down. So FDR actually paid farmers not to grow crops and had them destroyed. He destroyed millions of acres of food while Americans were starving. Then he confiscated every American citizens gold. He actually made it illegal to own gold! He forced millions of Americans to turn in their gold or be jailed; all for their own good of course. He then blamed the depression on gold hoarders! He also started the move to remove us from the gold standard. Yet he was the one that stole American's gold from them. His public works program did nothing but move people from the soup lines in the north east, to soup lines in the west. He gave people in cities like New York a false sense of hope because they saw less and less people in the soup lines; they thought things were getting better. In reality they were just as bad as ever, only now their neighbors were starving out west instead of in New York. His policies were a prime example of Frederick Bastiat's broken window fallacy. Simply moving money around does not create jobs. Many claim he gave people "hope." But I ask you reader what would you rather have, a false sense of hope and duty; or food in your stomach? Two books I recommend about FDR are "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Depression" By Jim Powell. As well as "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard.
-Teddy Roosevelt (R)
I think its safe to assume that if the presidents last name is Roosevelt then I do not like him. Teddy was a scientific progressive, and his foreign policy mishaps were absolutely terrible during the Spanish American War. His "trust-busting" practices paved the way for the anti-business sentiment that now seems to permeate through this country. He was one of the first major influential presidents to declare war on American free enterprise.The government is the ultimate monopoly because it has the use of force on its side. He also paved the way for the president as this ultra leadership figure who was the ultimate voice of the people and that any dissent from any member of congress was some sort of un-American country hating traitor. He started to push for the president taking more and more power in the name of "the people" even when the people did not agree. He basically, if not started the movement he sure as hell advanced the idea, that the president could solve all problems and had to take care of people. His ultra-progressive ideas such as universal health care, national health insurance are also a point of contention with me; as I do not believe health care, education, insurance etc. to be a "right" at all. All in all he was another radical progressive whose policies at home and abroad made America's government bigger and more active. I did move Teddy into the top 5. Originally he was not here but after reading more about this man I had no choice but to place him into the top 5 worst ever. His foreign policy has basically paved the way for many of our current foreign policy problems, influencing presidents such as Truman, LBJ, Clinton, both Bushes etc. Many presidents have adopted his model since his time in office. He was an imperialist and an expansionist monster.
-Lyndon B Johnson (D)
Personally he was an underhanded, rude and mischievous person. He treated his wife, and women in general, like property. There is a brilliant series of books written about him entitled "Lyndon B Johnson: Means of Ascent." Which shows how he stole elections, stuffed ballot boxes, and used every manipulative and underhanded trick to gain power. His Great Society is still crushing us even today; not to mention his absolute horrible foreign policy which drove us to have deeper involvement in Vietnam. Over 50,000 American lives were lost, not to mention millions of innocent Vietnamese lives lost. His visions of a Great Society by the means of government is his ultimate shame. He believed that through the use of government force, you could make people compassionate. This can only be done by voluntary means in a free market society. For every 1 person that his programs may help, 10 more are neglected. Not to mention the general immorality of stealing peoples money to give to someone else, how is this supposed to create a general sense of compassion? Johnson took good intentions and turned them into horrible realities.
-Woodrow Wilson (D)
Woodrow Wilson. Quite possibly the worst president we have ever had, or will ever have. Unlike the other presidents I listed earlier there is not one positive thing to say about this man, not one. Believe me I have tried. He passed the Federal Reserve Act which forever enslaved us to inflation. He gave us the popular phrase "Make the world safe for democracy." How many presidents have used that? George W Bush is the most recent example. He turned American foreign policy from non-interventionism to world police in less than 60 years. He was also in the pockets of world bankers and England. He sold out his country in only 8 years. He ran for re-election in 1916 under the banner "He kept us out of war!" Only months later to thrust America into WWI. A war America had absolutely no business being in. World police power, Federal Reserve, inflation, progressive era programs and intrusive government policies. Woodrow Wilson's policies are at the heart of all of our modern problems. For further reading I suggest Thomas Flemming's "The Illusion of Victory: America and WWI"
-Abraham Lincoln (R)
Yes you read that right, Abraham Lincoln. I know I have some explaining to do. Abraham Lincoln single handily turned the Union from a group of voluntary states in a forced coercive membership. We fought a war in the name of freedom and independence from tyranny against England in the 18th Century. The right to dissolve the bonds between citizens and government if that government is no longer serving them is the very ideal the America stands for. Yet Lincoln turned the voluntary United States into the compulsory United States. Ever since Lincoln the federal governments power over the states has grown by leaps and bounds. Not to mention that Lincoln was an absolute dictator and a tyrant. It is not widely known that Lincoln imprisoned thousands of innocent northerners who were "suspected" of aiding or be sympathetic to the south. Lincoln declared war on civil liberties in the name of "protecting the people." Its amazing how many people who hate president Bush for the Patriot Act are the same people who praise Lincoln. Lincoln simply set a standard for trampling civil liberties, every other president is simply trying to outdo him. Howard Dean during the 04 election was even foolish enough to refer to Lincoln as a civil liberties champion! There is a cult surrounding Lincoln; and groups what to deify this man as some sort of saint. I have a problem with this for any political leader though. We build monuments and statues in white marble and they resemble ancient Greek and Roman gods. This country was founded on saying screw the government and that those in government are not to be trusted! What happened to us? Yes the civil war did end slavery, in name mind you, but why did we need a war? England, France, Germany etc... they all ended slavery without killing hundreds of thousands of people. Slavery is an undeniable evil, but that is not the issue I am pointing out. Slavery is gone and we are all better off because of it, it is the absolute lowest form of treating another individual and the very idea of it sickens me. However do the ends justify the means? Ending slavery is good, but was Lincoln right to imprison, silence and in some cases force dissenters into the army against their will? Is the current War on Terror an adequate excuse for spying and imprisoning individuals who have not been found guilty of anything? Only suspected for some reason of being evil? The issue was the right of the southern states to secede when they believed that their government no longer served them. By Lincoln's actions, he set in motion the rush to power that has been an ever growing problem of the government controlling our economic and civil freedoms. For more information on the other side of Lincoln I recommend Thomas DiLorenzo's "Lincoln Unmasked", and "The Real Lincoln."
Bad Honorable Mention Presidents
-Herbert Hoover (R)
Hoover is seen by many as an example of a hands off free market president, however this is a myth. Hoover's intervention into the credit and monetary markets during the late 1920's are one of the main factors that lead to the crash of 1928. Hoover was by no means a true "free marketer." Many of FDR's policies were simply an expansion of the policies started under Hoover. Hoover had the government intervene to a high degree into the credit markets and artificially expand credit to those who could not afford it. People became paper millionaires, but had no real value or assets. Sound familiar?? This is exactly what is happening now in the economy due to Federal Reserve intervention into the housing market. Hoover could have taken a true hands off approach to this problem but he did not. In fact if he had not intervened into the credit market the crash of 1928 would not have happened at all. Murray Rothbard's brilliant book "America's Great Depression" goes into much depth about Hoover and FDR and why their actions led to and prolonged the Depression.
-Richard Nixon (R)
Nixon is an interesting case study. He permanently removed us from the gold standard, which instantly rockets him up to a horrible president in my eyes. However he did finally pull American troops out of Vietnam, and his foreign policy was outstanding. Opening up China to the US for business and the subsequent prosperity enjoyed by both Americans and Chinese is a huge plus in his favor. I just can not get over the removal of the gold standard. If it was anything else I would easily have him as at least an mediocre president. His domestic economic policies are also bad; with taxing business very high and endorsing inflation; which was well over12% under him. I still need to do more research on him, but for now I have him as a weird "somewhat great but at the same time horrible president." He gets his own category I guess.
-James Buchanan (D)
I gave Lincoln a lot of criticism but Buchanan's horrible handling of secession and North South relations merits some serious criticism. A lot of his actions and lack of action paved the way for the civil war.
-Jimmy Carter (D)
I think the Iran hostage crisis pretty much sums it up. Not to mention the horrible economic condition America was in due to not just Carter's policies but his lack of action in removing regulation. He taxed business to the highest in American history and as a result unemployment and inflation where both in double digits. This was the norm for almost all presidents in the late 60's up until the mid 1980's when Reagan was elected. Inflation and unemployment were around 15% and Keynesian economics were in full swing. Nixon was plagued by this same problem. He at first declared his opposition to Keynesian economics but after he was elected he embraced Keynesian economics.
-George W Bush (R)
I was hesitant about this one. Mainly because his presidency is not officially done yet; but also because its so trendy to hate Mr. Bush. Everyone thinks that Bush is the worst president ever, I would disagree with this. However the recent bailout plan, the largest in our nations history; sealed the deal with me. I never thought a so called small government republican would pass the largest bailout ever! He not only passed the bailout, he created a new cabinet position Homeland Security. He also went overseas and got America mixed up into a war with a nation that did not directly attack us, he wanted to make the world safe for democracy; once again showing how badly Woodrow Wilson has screwed us. He is actually one of the largest spending presidents in our history; he seems more like a progressive really. The Patriot Act also permits spying on innocent Americans. No Child Left Behind is also a costly program that does absolutely nothing for education. So to sum it up, No Child Left Behind, Homeland Security, Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the bailout all put Bush pretty high up on the worst presidents ever list. However like I said he has a few months left maybe he'll do something to impress me; and then maybe Sarah Palin will become a qualified leader and Barack Obama will actually say something with some substance. I'm probably asking for too much though.
-William McKinley (R)
He was a huge advocate of central banking and economic planning; both disastrous for this country. His foreign policy was also very imperialistic.
Those are my absolute worst presidents ever, with a few honorable mentions that were very bad, but sadly were not bad enough to make the top 5. They tried real hard, but with FDR, Lincoln, Wilson, Johnson and Teddy Roosevelt as the competition, its hard to compete. Just for reference the tally is 11 presidents so far with 6 Republicans and 5 Democrats lest it be thought I was being partisan or that I consider either party worth a damn. My top 5 best will be in the next post.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
-Thomas Jefferson
5 Worst Presidents (in so specific order yet)
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)
Many revere FDR as one of our nations best presidents. I however have the exact opposite opinion of this man. He was a manipulative, power hungry and corrupt individual. The stock market crash of 1929 would have been a short term recession if not for FDR's policies. Not to mention his executive order that placed Japanese Americans in internment camps, stole their property and robbed them of their freedoms and livelihoods during WWII. For the sole reason that their parents and grandparents just happened to come from the wrong country. There was no trial, investigation or hearing. No lawyers or anything for these innocent victims. He simply believed they "might be a threat." Absolutley disgusting. Now for his economic problems. Let me be abundantly clear about this The New Deal DID NOT alleviate the depression of the 1930's; it in fact made it worse. That is why the economy completely hit a low AFTER FDR started his programs in the 1930's. There was a second huge market hit in 1932 and it only got worse in 1934 and 1935 , which was FDR's fault. Just one of his many crimes was paying farmers not to grow food. He wanted to make sure farmers were still paid; people did not have money to pay them and the prices of goods were going down. So FDR actually paid farmers not to grow crops and had them destroyed. He destroyed millions of acres of food while Americans were starving. Then he confiscated every American citizens gold. He actually made it illegal to own gold! He forced millions of Americans to turn in their gold or be jailed; all for their own good of course. He then blamed the depression on gold hoarders! He also started the move to remove us from the gold standard. Yet he was the one that stole American's gold from them. His public works program did nothing but move people from the soup lines in the north east, to soup lines in the west. He gave people in cities like New York a false sense of hope because they saw less and less people in the soup lines; they thought things were getting better. In reality they were just as bad as ever, only now their neighbors were starving out west instead of in New York. His policies were a prime example of Frederick Bastiat's broken window fallacy. Simply moving money around does not create jobs. Many claim he gave people "hope." But I ask you reader what would you rather have, a false sense of hope and duty; or food in your stomach? Two books I recommend about FDR are "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Depression" By Jim Powell. As well as "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard.
-Teddy Roosevelt (R)
I think its safe to assume that if the presidents last name is Roosevelt then I do not like him. Teddy was a scientific progressive, and his foreign policy mishaps were absolutely terrible during the Spanish American War. His "trust-busting" practices paved the way for the anti-business sentiment that now seems to permeate through this country. He was one of the first major influential presidents to declare war on American free enterprise.The government is the ultimate monopoly because it has the use of force on its side. He also paved the way for the president as this ultra leadership figure who was the ultimate voice of the people and that any dissent from any member of congress was some sort of un-American country hating traitor. He started to push for the president taking more and more power in the name of "the people" even when the people did not agree. He basically, if not started the movement he sure as hell advanced the idea, that the president could solve all problems and had to take care of people. His ultra-progressive ideas such as universal health care, national health insurance are also a point of contention with me; as I do not believe health care, education, insurance etc. to be a "right" at all. All in all he was another radical progressive whose policies at home and abroad made America's government bigger and more active. I did move Teddy into the top 5. Originally he was not here but after reading more about this man I had no choice but to place him into the top 5 worst ever. His foreign policy has basically paved the way for many of our current foreign policy problems, influencing presidents such as Truman, LBJ, Clinton, both Bushes etc. Many presidents have adopted his model since his time in office. He was an imperialist and an expansionist monster.
-Lyndon B Johnson (D)
Personally he was an underhanded, rude and mischievous person. He treated his wife, and women in general, like property. There is a brilliant series of books written about him entitled "Lyndon B Johnson: Means of Ascent." Which shows how he stole elections, stuffed ballot boxes, and used every manipulative and underhanded trick to gain power. His Great Society is still crushing us even today; not to mention his absolute horrible foreign policy which drove us to have deeper involvement in Vietnam. Over 50,000 American lives were lost, not to mention millions of innocent Vietnamese lives lost. His visions of a Great Society by the means of government is his ultimate shame. He believed that through the use of government force, you could make people compassionate. This can only be done by voluntary means in a free market society. For every 1 person that his programs may help, 10 more are neglected. Not to mention the general immorality of stealing peoples money to give to someone else, how is this supposed to create a general sense of compassion? Johnson took good intentions and turned them into horrible realities.
-Woodrow Wilson (D)
Woodrow Wilson. Quite possibly the worst president we have ever had, or will ever have. Unlike the other presidents I listed earlier there is not one positive thing to say about this man, not one. Believe me I have tried. He passed the Federal Reserve Act which forever enslaved us to inflation. He gave us the popular phrase "Make the world safe for democracy." How many presidents have used that? George W Bush is the most recent example. He turned American foreign policy from non-interventionism to world police in less than 60 years. He was also in the pockets of world bankers and England. He sold out his country in only 8 years. He ran for re-election in 1916 under the banner "He kept us out of war!" Only months later to thrust America into WWI. A war America had absolutely no business being in. World police power, Federal Reserve, inflation, progressive era programs and intrusive government policies. Woodrow Wilson's policies are at the heart of all of our modern problems. For further reading I suggest Thomas Flemming's "The Illusion of Victory: America and WWI"
-Abraham Lincoln (R)
Yes you read that right, Abraham Lincoln. I know I have some explaining to do. Abraham Lincoln single handily turned the Union from a group of voluntary states in a forced coercive membership. We fought a war in the name of freedom and independence from tyranny against England in the 18th Century. The right to dissolve the bonds between citizens and government if that government is no longer serving them is the very ideal the America stands for. Yet Lincoln turned the voluntary United States into the compulsory United States. Ever since Lincoln the federal governments power over the states has grown by leaps and bounds. Not to mention that Lincoln was an absolute dictator and a tyrant. It is not widely known that Lincoln imprisoned thousands of innocent northerners who were "suspected" of aiding or be sympathetic to the south. Lincoln declared war on civil liberties in the name of "protecting the people." Its amazing how many people who hate president Bush for the Patriot Act are the same people who praise Lincoln. Lincoln simply set a standard for trampling civil liberties, every other president is simply trying to outdo him. Howard Dean during the 04 election was even foolish enough to refer to Lincoln as a civil liberties champion! There is a cult surrounding Lincoln; and groups what to deify this man as some sort of saint. I have a problem with this for any political leader though. We build monuments and statues in white marble and they resemble ancient Greek and Roman gods. This country was founded on saying screw the government and that those in government are not to be trusted! What happened to us? Yes the civil war did end slavery, in name mind you, but why did we need a war? England, France, Germany etc... they all ended slavery without killing hundreds of thousands of people. Slavery is an undeniable evil, but that is not the issue I am pointing out. Slavery is gone and we are all better off because of it, it is the absolute lowest form of treating another individual and the very idea of it sickens me. However do the ends justify the means? Ending slavery is good, but was Lincoln right to imprison, silence and in some cases force dissenters into the army against their will? Is the current War on Terror an adequate excuse for spying and imprisoning individuals who have not been found guilty of anything? Only suspected for some reason of being evil? The issue was the right of the southern states to secede when they believed that their government no longer served them. By Lincoln's actions, he set in motion the rush to power that has been an ever growing problem of the government controlling our economic and civil freedoms. For more information on the other side of Lincoln I recommend Thomas DiLorenzo's "Lincoln Unmasked", and "The Real Lincoln."
Bad Honorable Mention Presidents
-Herbert Hoover (R)
Hoover is seen by many as an example of a hands off free market president, however this is a myth. Hoover's intervention into the credit and monetary markets during the late 1920's are one of the main factors that lead to the crash of 1928. Hoover was by no means a true "free marketer." Many of FDR's policies were simply an expansion of the policies started under Hoover. Hoover had the government intervene to a high degree into the credit markets and artificially expand credit to those who could not afford it. People became paper millionaires, but had no real value or assets. Sound familiar?? This is exactly what is happening now in the economy due to Federal Reserve intervention into the housing market. Hoover could have taken a true hands off approach to this problem but he did not. In fact if he had not intervened into the credit market the crash of 1928 would not have happened at all. Murray Rothbard's brilliant book "America's Great Depression" goes into much depth about Hoover and FDR and why their actions led to and prolonged the Depression.
-Richard Nixon (R)
Nixon is an interesting case study. He permanently removed us from the gold standard, which instantly rockets him up to a horrible president in my eyes. However he did finally pull American troops out of Vietnam, and his foreign policy was outstanding. Opening up China to the US for business and the subsequent prosperity enjoyed by both Americans and Chinese is a huge plus in his favor. I just can not get over the removal of the gold standard. If it was anything else I would easily have him as at least an mediocre president. His domestic economic policies are also bad; with taxing business very high and endorsing inflation; which was well over12% under him. I still need to do more research on him, but for now I have him as a weird "somewhat great but at the same time horrible president." He gets his own category I guess.
-James Buchanan (D)
I gave Lincoln a lot of criticism but Buchanan's horrible handling of secession and North South relations merits some serious criticism. A lot of his actions and lack of action paved the way for the civil war.
-Jimmy Carter (D)
I think the Iran hostage crisis pretty much sums it up. Not to mention the horrible economic condition America was in due to not just Carter's policies but his lack of action in removing regulation. He taxed business to the highest in American history and as a result unemployment and inflation where both in double digits. This was the norm for almost all presidents in the late 60's up until the mid 1980's when Reagan was elected. Inflation and unemployment were around 15% and Keynesian economics were in full swing. Nixon was plagued by this same problem. He at first declared his opposition to Keynesian economics but after he was elected he embraced Keynesian economics.
-George W Bush (R)
I was hesitant about this one. Mainly because his presidency is not officially done yet; but also because its so trendy to hate Mr. Bush. Everyone thinks that Bush is the worst president ever, I would disagree with this. However the recent bailout plan, the largest in our nations history; sealed the deal with me. I never thought a so called small government republican would pass the largest bailout ever! He not only passed the bailout, he created a new cabinet position Homeland Security. He also went overseas and got America mixed up into a war with a nation that did not directly attack us, he wanted to make the world safe for democracy; once again showing how badly Woodrow Wilson has screwed us. He is actually one of the largest spending presidents in our history; he seems more like a progressive really. The Patriot Act also permits spying on innocent Americans. No Child Left Behind is also a costly program that does absolutely nothing for education. So to sum it up, No Child Left Behind, Homeland Security, Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the bailout all put Bush pretty high up on the worst presidents ever list. However like I said he has a few months left maybe he'll do something to impress me; and then maybe Sarah Palin will become a qualified leader and Barack Obama will actually say something with some substance. I'm probably asking for too much though.
-William McKinley (R)
He was a huge advocate of central banking and economic planning; both disastrous for this country. His foreign policy was also very imperialistic.
Those are my absolute worst presidents ever, with a few honorable mentions that were very bad, but sadly were not bad enough to make the top 5. They tried real hard, but with FDR, Lincoln, Wilson, Johnson and Teddy Roosevelt as the competition, its hard to compete. Just for reference the tally is 11 presidents so far with 6 Republicans and 5 Democrats lest it be thought I was being partisan or that I consider either party worth a damn. My top 5 best will be in the next post.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
-Thomas Jefferson
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Answer to our Economic Problems:Free Market Capitalism
This is a failure of unregulated markets. That phrase seems to have been adopted by every politician, analyst and most economists. The very idea that our current economic situation is a "failure" of free market capitalism is absolutely without any merit. The abandonment of free market principles is what got us into this mess in the first place. The economy should have gone through a recession back in the late 1990's during the dot-com bubble burst. This was the time when everyone was buying dot-com stocks and many put their entire savings into internet stocks. The market corrected because sadly there is no need for 1,000 Amazon.com sites. I will place a link at the end of this article for readers who are interested in reading and learning about the dot-com. I want to encourage thought and shamelessly promote the Ludwig von Mises Institute; so forgive me for not spoon feeding every detail myself. I will now, very basically explain our current financial crisis according to the Austrian business cycle theory and monetary theory. However I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE those interested to go to www.mises.org to learn more from people who are much smarter than myself.
"Artificially low interest rates caused by government intervention into the market will lead to malinvestment. As this malinvestment is discovered markets; left unhampered by government interference; will naturally correct and be able to separate good investments from malinvestment." There it is folks. That's your answer. Ludwig von Mises wrote this in his Magnum Opus "Human Action" back in the 1940's. Henrzy Hazlitt, Frederick von Hayek and many others have stated something similar to this even before Mises did. This is the cause of all of our problems. Here is the basic rundown. The federal government; in all their infinite wisdom; created Fannie and Freddie after the stock market collapse of 1929. The crash of 1929 was also a result of an abondement of free market principles. Hoover and his intervention into the credit and monetary market did not allow the markets to correct and paved the way for arguably the most active and I would argue one of the top 3 worst presidents this country has ever had, FDR. I will write more about the Great Depression and FDR's absolutely horrific policies in a later entry.
Fannie and Freddie were, as Henry Paulson put it, in the "business of making the American dream possible." However the price tag for making the American dream possible was placed on the American taxpayer. Here is a simple fact of life, not everyone can afford a 500,000$ house. Fannie and Freddie together own over 80% of the country's mortgages. They are GSE's; Government Sponsored Enterprises. many investors had more confidence in buying mortgages from Fannie and Freddie because they were "guaranteed" not to fail because they were backed by the government. It is the same principle of having confidence in a bank that is insured by the FDIC. As stated earlier the dot-com bubble of the late 1990's has a lot to do with our current situation. After the bubble burst, we should have had a recession back then. However the then president, Bill Clinton and the then chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan wanted to avoid the recession. So Greenspan decided to drastically lower the interest rates and spured the rampant investment into the housing market. The artificially low interest rates convinced many people who were renting at the time that they could afford to buy a house; usually a very big expensive house. The banks, backed by the loans and mortgages of Frannie and Freddie were encouraged to make very risky loans to people who had a very shaky credit history. These mortgages were then resold on the stock market. People were basically betting millions that these loans would be repaid; looks like they were wrong. The problem now is that there are too many houses and the malinvestments are not being allowed to be purged from the system. People bought houses they could not afford and those who have lower incomes are being evicted. All the while those on wall street have received 700$billion courtesy of the American tax payer. So who really benefited from these loans? Without these government interventions these people would never had bought these houses they couldn't afford and the tax payers wouldn't be paying for it. Yea I don't know about you but I really hope that these same people decide to "help" us out some more. I think they have done quite enough.
Now many people blame the selling of these mortgages in an unregulated market as the main culprit, implying that stricter regulations are the answer. Those who committed fraud and stole people's savings should be prosecuted and brought to justice; there is no doubt about that. However without government intervention by the Federal Reserve, government monetary policy and the risky loaning encouraged by Fannie and Freddie this situation would never have happened. Fannie and Freddie did not respond to market forces and were backed by the monopoly that is government power. The prospect of being held responsible for their actions was never there. They felt they could never fail and they acted as such. Institutions without the backing of government safety nets have to act with their long term self interest in mind. This, as people in Washington are unaware of, is called BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS!! If these institutions fail, it is only themselves and their investors that are at risk. This fact keeps most private institutions always vigilant and always monitoring themselves and being very frugal and cautious with how they spend their money. A lesson those in Washington should be obliged to learn. Those businesses and institutions that do make bad decisions or committ fraud are then brought to justice by either market forces, or held accountability by the justice system. The free market is its own safeguard and regulator.
Government caused this problem and more government spending will not help it. This 700$ billion bailout will do only a few things. First it will most certainly cost more than 700$ billion the government is notorious for not being able to calculate costs. This money will also go right back to the politicians. When those who passed this bailout run for re-election who do you think is going to finance their campaigns? I'm putting my money on a lot of the bailout money going back to their campaigns as a great big "thank you" for baling their ass's out. This will also destroy our currency. Despite what many in the mainstream media and economic world say inflation is NOT rising prices. Inflation is simply an increase in the money supply. What this does is make the purchasing power of our dollars go down. Which in turn is why the FDIC is so counterproductive. Many people may feel confident that their money is "insured" by the FDIC. This may help prevent bank runs and gave a so called confidence in the banks but in the end it can only hurt people. Many leave their money in these banks while the government prints more and more of it. Both Obama ad McCain want to increase spending on domestic programs and abroad. This coupled with the absolute bullshit stimulus checks and the 700$billions bailout is going to rob people of their money's value. By the time people decide to withdraw their money from the banks they will have seen their savings destroyed and their purchasing power is in shambles. This is exactly what happened in post WWI Germany. If it was not for the FDIC people would have taken out their money sooner and could have invested it. The FDIC provides people with a false sense of security and allows the government to rob them; all the while pretending to protect their savings.
Free market banking, a gold standard and a limited government are the answers to our problems. Many in government to want to help, but they don't seem to understand that by intervening they are causing more harm to those that they are attempting to help. The free market is the la salvation we have. The market of ideas and commerce; and both of these must be left free and unhampered if we ever hope to overcome the tough times ahead and want to reign in our government. It is time for the market to be allowed to work and the ideological battle must be won. I consider it my job to spread the ideological and moral superiority of free market capitalism through advocating and writing. This battle for the heart of the American free enterprise spirit must be regained and capitalism needs to stop being the whipping boy of those who want to expand the size and power of government over our lives for their own gains.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
Here is the link for the dot-com story.
http://mises.org/story/736
www.mises.org
Check out Murray Rothbard's book "America's Great Depression" for a very detailed analysis of the reasons for the prolonged causes of the depression.
http://www.mises.org/store/Americas-Great-Depression-P63C18.aspx?AFID=14
If one rejects laissez faire capitalism on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
-Ludwig von Mises
"Artificially low interest rates caused by government intervention into the market will lead to malinvestment. As this malinvestment is discovered markets; left unhampered by government interference; will naturally correct and be able to separate good investments from malinvestment." There it is folks. That's your answer. Ludwig von Mises wrote this in his Magnum Opus "Human Action" back in the 1940's. Henrzy Hazlitt, Frederick von Hayek and many others have stated something similar to this even before Mises did. This is the cause of all of our problems. Here is the basic rundown. The federal government; in all their infinite wisdom; created Fannie and Freddie after the stock market collapse of 1929. The crash of 1929 was also a result of an abondement of free market principles. Hoover and his intervention into the credit and monetary market did not allow the markets to correct and paved the way for arguably the most active and I would argue one of the top 3 worst presidents this country has ever had, FDR. I will write more about the Great Depression and FDR's absolutely horrific policies in a later entry.
Fannie and Freddie were, as Henry Paulson put it, in the "business of making the American dream possible." However the price tag for making the American dream possible was placed on the American taxpayer. Here is a simple fact of life, not everyone can afford a 500,000$ house. Fannie and Freddie together own over 80% of the country's mortgages. They are GSE's; Government Sponsored Enterprises. many investors had more confidence in buying mortgages from Fannie and Freddie because they were "guaranteed" not to fail because they were backed by the government. It is the same principle of having confidence in a bank that is insured by the FDIC. As stated earlier the dot-com bubble of the late 1990's has a lot to do with our current situation. After the bubble burst, we should have had a recession back then. However the then president, Bill Clinton and the then chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan wanted to avoid the recession. So Greenspan decided to drastically lower the interest rates and spured the rampant investment into the housing market. The artificially low interest rates convinced many people who were renting at the time that they could afford to buy a house; usually a very big expensive house. The banks, backed by the loans and mortgages of Frannie and Freddie were encouraged to make very risky loans to people who had a very shaky credit history. These mortgages were then resold on the stock market. People were basically betting millions that these loans would be repaid; looks like they were wrong. The problem now is that there are too many houses and the malinvestments are not being allowed to be purged from the system. People bought houses they could not afford and those who have lower incomes are being evicted. All the while those on wall street have received 700$billion courtesy of the American tax payer. So who really benefited from these loans? Without these government interventions these people would never had bought these houses they couldn't afford and the tax payers wouldn't be paying for it. Yea I don't know about you but I really hope that these same people decide to "help" us out some more. I think they have done quite enough.
Now many people blame the selling of these mortgages in an unregulated market as the main culprit, implying that stricter regulations are the answer. Those who committed fraud and stole people's savings should be prosecuted and brought to justice; there is no doubt about that. However without government intervention by the Federal Reserve, government monetary policy and the risky loaning encouraged by Fannie and Freddie this situation would never have happened. Fannie and Freddie did not respond to market forces and were backed by the monopoly that is government power. The prospect of being held responsible for their actions was never there. They felt they could never fail and they acted as such. Institutions without the backing of government safety nets have to act with their long term self interest in mind. This, as people in Washington are unaware of, is called BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS!! If these institutions fail, it is only themselves and their investors that are at risk. This fact keeps most private institutions always vigilant and always monitoring themselves and being very frugal and cautious with how they spend their money. A lesson those in Washington should be obliged to learn. Those businesses and institutions that do make bad decisions or committ fraud are then brought to justice by either market forces, or held accountability by the justice system. The free market is its own safeguard and regulator.
Government caused this problem and more government spending will not help it. This 700$ billion bailout will do only a few things. First it will most certainly cost more than 700$ billion the government is notorious for not being able to calculate costs. This money will also go right back to the politicians. When those who passed this bailout run for re-election who do you think is going to finance their campaigns? I'm putting my money on a lot of the bailout money going back to their campaigns as a great big "thank you" for baling their ass's out. This will also destroy our currency. Despite what many in the mainstream media and economic world say inflation is NOT rising prices. Inflation is simply an increase in the money supply. What this does is make the purchasing power of our dollars go down. Which in turn is why the FDIC is so counterproductive. Many people may feel confident that their money is "insured" by the FDIC. This may help prevent bank runs and gave a so called confidence in the banks but in the end it can only hurt people. Many leave their money in these banks while the government prints more and more of it. Both Obama ad McCain want to increase spending on domestic programs and abroad. This coupled with the absolute bullshit stimulus checks and the 700$billions bailout is going to rob people of their money's value. By the time people decide to withdraw their money from the banks they will have seen their savings destroyed and their purchasing power is in shambles. This is exactly what happened in post WWI Germany. If it was not for the FDIC people would have taken out their money sooner and could have invested it. The FDIC provides people with a false sense of security and allows the government to rob them; all the while pretending to protect their savings.
Free market banking, a gold standard and a limited government are the answers to our problems. Many in government to want to help, but they don't seem to understand that by intervening they are causing more harm to those that they are attempting to help. The free market is the la salvation we have. The market of ideas and commerce; and both of these must be left free and unhampered if we ever hope to overcome the tough times ahead and want to reign in our government. It is time for the market to be allowed to work and the ideological battle must be won. I consider it my job to spread the ideological and moral superiority of free market capitalism through advocating and writing. This battle for the heart of the American free enterprise spirit must be regained and capitalism needs to stop being the whipping boy of those who want to expand the size and power of government over our lives for their own gains.
In Liberty,
Mr. Jefferson
Here is the link for the dot-com story.
http://mises.org/story/736
www.mises.org
Check out Murray Rothbard's book "America's Great Depression" for a very detailed analysis of the reasons for the prolonged causes of the depression.
http://www.mises.org/store/Americas-Great-Depression-P63C18.aspx?AFID=14
If one rejects laissez faire capitalism on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
-Ludwig von Mises
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
