How Democrats And Fake Republicans Destroyed The Economy And Why Socialism Doesn't Work: THE HARD FACTS AND RAW NUMBERS REVEAL ALL

These are the numbers that show the kind of "change" socialist radicals have wrought upon us.

The record is there for all to witness for themselves. As Michael Medved pointed out in Townhall.com: 

 

"Following the 1994 GOP congressional takeover (for the first time in 40 years [under Clinton]), business conditions dramatically improved, with the unemployment rate declining to an average of 4.77 percent [versus the previous 6.5 percent]

"During two years of all-Democrat rule (1993-1994), the federal deficit averaged 3.35 percent of the gross domestic product, but the subsequent six years (under GOP congressional leadership) brought deficits averaging less than zero -- with surpluses from 1998 through 2001.

"Some commentators suggest that these figures show that Washington works best when different parties control White House and Congress, BUT THE 2006 MIDTERM VICTORY FOR DEMOCRATS during George W. Bush's presidency spelled economic calamity.

"In W's first six years, with his GOP allies dominating Capitol Hill, Bush deficits averaged 1.91 PERCENT OF THE GDP -- well below the 60-year postwar average. AFTER HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., and SEN. MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID, D-NEV brought their free-spending ways to House and Senate, DEFICITS SOARED TO A DANGEROUS 4.74 PERCENT over the next two years -- and continued to skyrocket to a projected (and appaling) 10.27 PERCENT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA.

"The unemployment rate went from an average of 5.29 percent during Bush's first six years (with Republican majorities) to 6.57 percent after the Dems came to power -- and an excruciating 9.4 PERCENT (AVERAGE) DURING THE FIRST 18 months of OBAMA."

In a famous interview with Nancy Pelosi CBS's Bob Schieffer asked if Obama can be viewed as a failure as well in light of the overall situation to which Pelosi responded by arguing that Republicans "control the agenda" even though Republicans won the House of Representatives (which Pelosi previously ruled over America from through her socialist 'we have to pass a law before you get to read it' approach to governing and special benefits) just last November and the Democrats still control both the Presidency and the Senate!

Here's the link to that interview, by the way: "Bob Schieffer Scolds Pelosi For Congress Doing 'Basically Nothing' on Economy" http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cbs-bob-schieffer-scolds-nancy-pelosi-for-congress-doing-basically-nothing-on-economy/

Republicans and those who believe in limited government and free trade are fighting an uphill battle. Milan Kundera whose books were banned under Communist rule in Czechoslovakia once said, "the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." So it's no wonder that people who are commiting great errors in the name of revolution and certain ideas and doctrines wish to erase the inconvenient truth about the past and about now.

This is why the former Speaker of the House, a speaker of socialist deceit, distortions and sophistry, who is far from alone by the way (as she represents the radical Marxist establishment that dominates academia, government and institutions of consequence and influence), decided, on Face the Nation, to blow more smoke about "the future" and about more socialist policies rather than deciding to face the truth that the rhetoric she chose to accuse Republicans with in the past really applied to herself and her subversive Democrat and fake Republican (i.e. McCain et al) comrades in government, academia and in the organizations that are undermining and harming America today. Of course this wouldn't be in her interest, but only in a sense.. In the selfishly ideological sense.

The realization that man may act selfishly in ways that are not exclusively monetary, as philosophers have argued and pointed out in the past, may be for her own good in the long run - as it may lead her and others like her to the revelation of greater truths vis a vis economics and politics (and perhaps even deeper personal understandings and intellectual growth.)

Here is an opportunity to examine the idea of another dimension and aspect to selfishness besides the common one we all hear about as highlighted by the rhetoric of class warfare: financial greed. The question regarding other dimensions to selfishness and self interest is key to explaining why socialism doesn't work.

In his Theory of Money and Credit, F.A. Hayek's predecessor, Ludwig von Mises, highlights and argues that "Private ownership of the means of production tends to shift control of production to the hands of those best fitted for this job and thus to secure for all members of society the fullest possible satisfaction of their needs."


I remember quoting this in a YOUTUBE debate with someone under the screenname "Imdslam" who actually tried to argue that the more that people are allowed to develop and exchange with eachother the less they have. This is what he said @ "thexcount" (my youtube sn): "Outsourcing happens because big business tells us Free trade will create jobs here and increase tax revenue. total lie and proven wrong."


And with regard to the Mises quote about the benefits received by all members of society and private ownership in a free market / free trade economy and people who make alot of money I pointed out: "a big incentive for CEOs to bring success and profit and low prices to consumers is in their shares of stock which is part of their pay deal. THE world is full of competition, billions of people. Its not up to the govt how much one should be allowed to grow." I also argued that "class warfare is petty and backwards thinking. Not progressive at all, but as we can see the results again and again: counterproductive." It is immature and juvenile. Also, the Marxist class/warfare approach and nanny-state fosters mediocrity and dependency rather than ingenuity, growth, development and the entrepreneurial spirit.


Furthermore, I argue(d): "outsourcing is a fact of life that can't be prohibited without violating the principles of freedom. Such as anyone's right to do business in the next town or the next city.; It's basically like saying you can't open an airplane plant in South Carolina just because you have done business in Oregon or Washington. Restricting free trade and inflating the cost of free trade is counterproductive. And if you are such a humanitarian u should be happy that anyone opens business and jobs ANYWHERE."

There is a very important principle that needs to be understood here and this is pointed out by Adam Smith, author of An Inquiry Into The Causes of the Wealth of Nations. It is that "The property which everyman has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable."

Now what exactly is happening when bureaucrats decide that they can or should be involved in "creating jobs" or spending money that is not theirs in ways which cross the line which Thomas Jefferson explained was part of America's framework for "a wise and frugal government, which SHALL RESTRAIN MEN FROM INJURING ONE ANOTHER, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.."

This is a major contradiction to today's establishment and teaching which I trace the roots of in my paper and survey of socialism. These ideas and principles are a major contradiction to the idea that government planners, politicos and bureaucrats should be directing, planning, and (yes) manipulating the economy and the citizens who form it as if it were some sort of destructive force or natural disaster and disorder as if the people were sheep to be herded and prodded in this direction or that by saintly and annointed bureaucrats and government officials. As history has revealed again and again, these people really have a talent for knowing how to spend other people's money for their own good.

They are very good at pointing the economy in the right direction, just as FDR did when he prolonged America's great depression by SEVEN YEARS according to UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian who found that Roosevelt's policies thwarted economic recovery - I would add in a similar fashion to Obama's prolonged, sustained and increased unemployment. Here's the link
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

I should mention, at least in passing, that Socialism is not confined to strictly financial/monetary aspects of the human economy in a broader and more general sense because in culture socialism can be the application of "massive use of political power" (as Ralph Raico has pointed out) applied against society as its masters and rulers at the time may see fit. This is probably one of the reasons that religious authoritarians such as those in the middle east (i.e. Arab Socialism) as well as intellectual authoritarians (i.e. "Communist vanguarders" who realize they stand against the interests of those with free will) have been comfortable with the socialist arrangement and power it bestows upon their so-called governments.

Of course socialists come in many stripes but none of them are compatible with the American model. I would add Keynesianism to the list of failed attempts.

See also Keynes and the Reds by Ralph Raico
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=136

And here is Ron Ross in Fatal Flaws of Keynesian Economics:
"The Chicago School's research led them to conclude that INDIVIDUALS ARE RELATIVELY DELIBERATE AND SOPHISTICATED IN HOW THEY MAKE ECONOMIC CHOICES. Keynesians and their liberal followers apparently think individuals are short-sighted and simple minded.

"An elemental but too often overlooked reality about our economy is that it is based on voluntary exchange. Voluntary exchange is an even more fundamental feature of our economy than is the market. A market is any arrangement that brings buyers and sellers together. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A MARKET IS TO MAKE VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE POSSIBLE."

But what happens under Keynsian "stimulus" type schemes and de-facto politico manipulation or "planning" (that is social engineering in the market by government functionaries rather than by the community making its own arrangements) in the economy?

One example I would cite is the outstanding economic event known as the 2008 housing crash and financial crisis (which involved 27 MILLION risky and subprime loans, half of all mortgages in the U.S. according to The American Spectator in its May 2011 issue article by Peter Wallison, What Hath Government Wrought?)

Here is Thomas C. Taylor in An Introduction to Austrian Economics, detailing the consequences of the disruptive and disasterous bubble effect which distorting and irrational malinvestment practices and policies produces:

"Decreased interest rates in the early stages of the credit expansion emerge as FAULTY SIGNALS to entrepreneur-producers about the real savings available for business investment purposes. Business decisions are made as if the ratio of present (consumer) goods to future (capital) goods has dropped, when in actuality no such things have occured. Additional investments in capital goods broadening and lengthening the structure of production are spurred as a business boom gets underway. Resources are diverted into the production of capital goods, and the prices of such resources are concomitantly bid up in the process. Yet the cue that the entrepreneur-producers have followed, the interest rate, has been FALSIFIED by the effects of the credit expansion. Real savings appropriately available for additional capital goods formation has not increased. Under the conditions of a short-lived credit expansion, the boom can only be temporary. The demand for consumer goods has not dropped, and the impropriety of enlarging and lengthening the production process as if it had is revealed once the credit expansion is terminated. The costs invested are seen as unjustified because the longer waiting time to complete and implement the additional capacity to produce is inappropriate in view of the unaffected demand for consumer goods. Production expansions cannot be finished, and the structure of production, which involves the coordination of numerous links in the lengthened production chain, is thrown out of smooth running order. Liquidations and rearrangements of production are necessary in order to correct the undesireable and 'unforseen' effects of the malinvestments. The actual consumption-savings ratio is once again able to dictate the balance between shorter and longer or more roundabout approaches to production. The correction or adjustment process is what is commonly referred to as a recession or depression. If the duration of the credit expansion is not short, then the extent of malinvestments is compounded and the inevitable and eventual correction process is intensified."

Jack Webb Schools Obama on America

The Obama File [Please Watch For Updates]:



OBAMA'S "INDUSTRIAL SABOTAGE" DEVASTATES THE GULF
by John Hindedraker/Kevin Mooney - Collateral Damage: Lost Gulf Rigs from Obama Obstructionism (10 down, more to go?) More here:
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/08/lost-gulf-rigs-obama/#more-16297
and Here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/obamas-industrial-sabotage-devastates-the-gulf.php

"Kevin Mooney tabulates the damage that the Obama administration is doing [...] 'Ten oil rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico since the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on deepwater oil and gas drilling in May 2010 and others could follow soon... The rigs have left the Gulf for locations in Egypt, Congo, French Guiana, Liberia, Nigeria and Brazil. [...] Moreover, eight other rigs that were planned for the Gulf have been detoured away [...] What you are seeing in Louisiana is only a small piece of a larger mosaic being put together by the Obama Administration to make affordable energy as inaccessible as possible,' [...] From the administration's war on coal to the serious consideration it is giving to imposing a nationwide regulation of hydraulic fracturing [...] to its endangerment finding from the EPA [...] the administration is practicing its own form of selected industrial sabotage.'"

I echo a question from the comments about this story: "WHY IS THIS NOT THE STORY OF THE YEAR. THE PRESIDENT IS ON A 10 DAY VACATION AND MEN TRYING TO GET WORK CANNOT."




Rule By Decree [TEAM OBAMA'S CONTEMPTFUL (SIC) AND DISINGENUOUS MANIPULATIVE ARBITRARY RULE APPROACH TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, AMERICA'S LEGAL SYSTEM AND AMERICA'S BORDERS]
by Scott Johnson
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/rule-by-decree.php

"The Obama administration announced last week that it would suspend deportation proceedings against many illegal immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety [...] Only last month, addressing The Race, Obama disclaimed the authority to reform immigration policy on his own [...] 1. The new policy [...] extends a welcome mat to those who have not yet made it to the United States illegally and are able to make it over the border through self-help. It might make sense as part of comprehensive immigration reform. By itself, it is a serious mistake. 2. The new policy undercuts American sovereignty. For Obama and liberals of the New York Times variety, this is an attraction. For the rest of us, not so much. 3. THE NEW POLICY IS FORMULATED IN TERMS OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE WISE USE OF RESOURCES, BUT THIS IS SIMPLY DISINGENUOUS - PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR CHUMPS. 4. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has aastronomically increased the budgets of federal agencies virtually since the day it took office. If additional resources are needed for immigration enforcement, the administration could seek to reallocate the necessary funds from other federal agencies or from elsewhere in the federal budget. 5. One would think that in a post 9/11 world, immigration enforcement would be among our highest law enforcement priorities. 6. The new policy is pure politics. With an eye to the 2012 election, it is geared to pump up members of The Race and others of their persuasion. 7. The new policy is one that does not enjoy political support. DEMOCRATS WERE UNABLE TO PASS IT AS LAW WHEN THEY CONTROLLED BOTH BRANCHES OF CONGRESS DURING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. 8. THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW POLICY AS A MATTER OF EXECUTIVE FIAT IS THEREFORE PROFOUNDLY OFFENSIVE TO OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT."




Obama Regime Tripled Down on Failure - and Faults the Tea Party?
by Rush Limbaugh
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080811/content/01125108.guest.html
"The group that forced this debt discussion in the first place, the only group to offer an actual plan to reduce the deficit: The Tea party. By the way, where is David Axelrod's plan to reduce the deficit? Where is John F. Kerry's plan to reduce the deficit? And where is Obama's plan to reduce the deficit? And where is Nancy Pelosi's plan, and where is Steny Hoyer's plan? Where is Maxine Waters' plan? THEY HAVEN'T PRESENTED A BUDGET IN OVER 800 DAYS [...] They have no plan whatsoever other than to preside over this disaster [...] MEANWHILE, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FORGET THE DEMOCRATS HAD SUPERMAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE FOR MOST OF THE LAST TWO YEARS, AND THEY DIDN'T ONCE PASS ONE BILL TO RAISE TAXES. They had their chance, but THE DEMOCRATS don't want to raise taxes unless [they can get away with it and] blame REPUBLICANS for it. That's how concerned they are about saving the country [...] Whatever doesn't work, we do it again -- even more vigorously than when we did it the first time -- and if doesn't work the second time we get even more excited and we triple down on it. THIS REGIME HAS TAKEN WHAT DOESN'T WORK AND ADDED TO IT. So on Friday, August 21st, Obama leaves for vacation. They have a little document dump and say, 'Oh, by the way, we had a little miscalculation. We were wrong the other day. Our national debt's gonna go up by $2 trillion as a result of policies to date.' THAT WAS AS OF TWO YEARS AGO. FOLKS, THAT IS HIS FIRST YEAR! Dingy Harry is trying to blame the Tea Party. The Tea Party is the only group that has ever pushed for real deficit reduction [...] the only group to offer a plan to reduce the deficit. It was called CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE. Yet, according to Axelrod [Obama's Campaign Manager, the Democrat Party and the rest of the LIEberal Socialist Communist propaganda appartatus] the downgrade is all the Tea Party's fault! That's what liberals call 'logic,' and the rest of the world calls laughable bald-faced lies."




The Chosen One
by Angelo Codevilla
http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1852/article_detail.asp

"...Since the days of KARL MARX's First International a century and a half ago, this very human opposition between socialist theory (egalitarianism) and socialist reality (oligarchic oppression) has bedeviled the Left. Marx laid the problem bare in his 'Critique of the Gotha Program' (1875). Lenin dealt with it honestly and brutally in 'What Is to Be Done?'' (1902) - the foundational document of Communism. By Acknowledging that the Communist Party is not the common people's representative, but rather its 'vanguard,' Leninists were comfortable with a party responsible only to itself and to history, a party that openly demanded deference from the humans whose habitats it forcibly reshaped. Communism's undeniable horrors forced the New Left to disassociate itself from 'What Is to Be Done?' and once again to pretend that its socialism was neither oligarchic nor coercive, that somehow it was on the side of ordinary folks. This is a much tougher sell in the 21st century than it was in the 19th. Contemporary socialists try to explain away the common man's suspicion of them as harbingers of oligarchy, corruption, and coercion by resorting to jargon (e.g., 'false consciousness' and 'socio-economic anxiety'). But that is ever less convincing. This is why the movement argues so strenuously with itself about whether and how much it should dissimulate its agenda."




FREE online version of BARACK OBAMA'S RULES FOR REVOLUTION: T H E   A L I N S K Y   M O D E L by David Horowitz Freedom Center - available here (in PDF format)

WORKING PAPER/under construction

Dear readers, friends and interested parties,

This investigation is a work in progress, unfolding and developing as the evidence permits. I’m trying to trace the politics and economics of the free market approach as well as the socialist view and see where the two come together and what from each perspective may help us understand things as they are and guide us to better decisions.

I agree with the view that Kevin Williams holds which is that socialism by any other name is still socialism. And communism is simply the same thing taken to its logical conclusion, to the natural point, that socialism leads to, which is what Karl Marx was advocating without realizing, understanding or perceiving the full error and consequence of his historical interpretations and prescription which turned out to be incredibly poisonous and deadly to unimaginable numbers of human beings.

Communism is the open, naked, and full blown progression of the heart and soul of the socialist vision; it is the natural evolution of socialist economic logic when push comes to shove and it is time to decide whether or not the role of government is to command and order man with regard to his own property, labor and person "for the greater good." If the greater good THEORETICALLY demands that view, then your life, and much more so your liberty, has now been fundamentally transformed into something which does not really belong to you. The difference is not as much theoretical as it is one of development and subjectivity because the difference between the Communists and "Democratic" Socialists is in that the former were much less squeamish about the level of human destruction, suffering, oppression and waste that they were/are willing to "bear" in the name of half-baked ideas which I wish to address and identify for those who may be looking into for the first time or seeking more information and material about. 

Here I wish to show and prove the REALITY that freedom works and that, as Kevin Williamson has argued, in his Chapter 2 of the Politically Incorrect Guide To Socialism, "Yes, 'Real Socialism' Has Been Tried - And It Has Failed,": "Utopias exist only in the imaginations of political idealists and stoned poli-sci undergraduates."

Williams, as I do here as well, asked, is it possible that we can "operate under the radical theory that socialism is what socialism does, not what socialists would like socialism to be"???

"But the idea that the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, China, and others have failed socialism - not that socialism has failed them - persists. And it persists at relatively high levels of intellectual discourse, as in left-wing patron saint Noam Chomsky's shameful defense of the genocidal Khmer Rouge."

 I was involved in a public disagreement with someone on YOUTUBE in which I made the following statement, which I have modified and adapted to post onto a single separate blog entry, and now here as well:

"If Democrats or Republicans had tenure you couldn't fire them.

If you can't fire anyone -ever- but you have to pay them anyway, pretty soon what you receive from them is going to be more and more defective product or whatever they want to give you, which will be mostly 'orders' and lies which they will bark at you and you will not be able to get away from them because socialism is the ultimate monopoly and economic corruption. Be prepared to have your economy and your back broken, IF YOU CAN'T FIRE THEM.

Free markets, not free loaders."

That's what I tried to communicate to YOUTUBE user "lmdslam" through my account, "thexcount," over here, in comments about the uploaded video titled "Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis" by user "NakedEmperorNews," which as of now has 3,807,149 views. 

  

 Poverty is one manifestation of the problem and general, natural and universal phenomena of scarcity. It also involves, for lack of a more polite term, human defects and ills. Mental problems, drug abuse, natural and economic disasters, bad luck and a line of unfortunate events. Now, at least in the disaster scenario one can still recover because the world offers opportunity as well as misfortune. The question is not whether we should help, but HOW we should do it.

I believe that the most honest aspect of the socialist critique of capitalism, the limited government and free market approach, is its overly simplistic characterization of capitalism as an uncooperative arrangement while ignoring the extremely important line that is drawn by negative-rights protection for individuals and the broader community, and yes, even economy. 

Ludwig von Mises explained that the purpose of negative rights was and is as the obviation of "an evil, the omnipotence of the police power [of government], and to prevent the state from becoming totalitarian."

 And then there is the critique of inequality, wealth, obscene profits, exploitation, the predatory society, etc., etc.

The fact that some individuals attain great amounts of monetary benefits, reaping enormous sums of profit, is seen as coming at the expense of others and causing the demise of others which then provides the rationale behind government becoming the arbiter of what is too much for someone to have, how much they are allowed to grow economically, as if such growth in and of itself causes others harm. This suggestion is one of the errors which comes with counterproductive implications and activities, such as the divisive, obnoxious and petty ax grinding of class warfare which is far more expensive and misdirecting of energy and resources to address, than actually improving the human condition efficiently and effectively, such as by direct local charity and focused generosities and labors. The expansion of government and its ever-expanding ever self-justified self-supporting meddling and constraints in our lives actually takes from our labors to sustain mroe and more bureaucratic and inefficient arrangements which manifests itself in the decreased productivity and increased economic troubles that is repeated again and again in socialist projects.

The bottom line in that this subliminally envious approach is that it is a destructive and counterproductive attitude and premise to build a philosophy and political campaign upon.

            -HISTORY- 

I believe that capitalism and socialism are twins in that they were born at the same time as economic theories and concepts, having a sort of ying-yang dichotomy in terms of opinion and intellectual doctrine and that "there is nothing that could mitigate the conflict between those two principles," as Ludwig von Mises proves in Middle of the Road Policy Leads To Socialism.

See also On "Third Way Economics" which I link to over at https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketcircle

But more on that point later.

Henri De Saint Simon, born in 1760, known as the father of French Socialism, and who apparently coined the term socialisme, was a dreamer like John Lennon of "Imagine" fame.

He was one of the critics of issues which become very pronounced in such periods such as during the time of the Industrial Revolution as well as the French Revolution. Big human issues, such as inequality and poverty.

Historically, people have always asked whether or not there might be "a better way," and in revolutionary France, this aristocrat theorized and formulated his opinons, which those such as Karl Marx shared and carried on with.

One of the apparently systematic problems of capitalism is this "hyperproductivity" or "surplus" material overabundance and waste (which is closely related to the boom bust cycle).

It can be seen on a large scale when too much of something is produced beyond the point at which there really is no more natural (i.e. market) demand or need for it. This can be seen on the micro level, where 5 meat patties, a few onion rings are "left over" and thrown out when a vendor or his employees closes shop, having overestimated the need of the day’s potential customer needs or demands. This will cause protest from the socialist camp, providing a kind of ammunition against the system which allows for such a thing to happen.

But this "problem" is much preferable to the aggravation of the problem of scarcity and mediocrity which is what socialism through its monopolistic and distorted views of economics causes.

I wish to contribute something more to the points that have already been made in response to the socialist critique (the development and formulation of capitalism) of a system such as that intended and secured by the U.S. Constitution. Ludwig von Mises is one of those who have responded. Even if it is simply to promote these long neglected and needed arguments!

See:The Future of Liberty -GEORGE REISMAN, PhD

and:Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis -LUDWIG VON MISES http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

...TO BE CONTINUED...
Christopher Sufle
5/25/2011CONTINUED:
07/29/2011 Working Paper Update. Still under construction:

I offer this paper to the average concerned and interested citizen as much as I do to the professional (that is payed and career) intellectuals/philosophers in order to promote the best case for free trade and free market economics and limited government, which to be so, must remain fixed in place within specifically defined and codified boundries. To promote the view, espoused by Thomas Jefferson, and expanded upon in depth and great breadth within the Federalist Papers of "a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, 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."

What should those boundries that I speak of be and why should we consider that the free market economic system is the key to this question of what form of government benefits humanity the most if taken up?

Well, I would begin with the premise offered by the author of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, who argued in the 1700s that "the property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable."

In his Theory of Money and Credit, F.A. Hayek's predecessor, Ludwig von Mises highlights this finding, that "private ownership of the means of production tends to shift control of production to the hands of those best fitted for this job and thus to secure for all members of society the fullest possible satisfaction of their needs."

This is a major contradiction to the idea that government planners, politicos and bureaucrats, should be directing, planning, and (yes) manipulating the economy and the citizens who form it as if it were some sort of destructive force or natural disaster and disorder and as if the people were sheep to be herded and prodded in this direction or that.

As John Taylor, in his Introduction to Austrian Economics, shows:

"Decreased interest rates in the early stages of THE CREDIT EXPANSION emerge as FAULTY SIGNALS to entrepreneur-producers about the real savings AVAILABLE for business investment purposes. Business decisions are made as if the ratio of present (consumer) goods to future (capital) goods has dropped, when in actuality no such change has occured. Additional investments in capital goods broadening and lengthening the structure of production are spurred as a business boom gets underway. Resources are diverted into the production of capital goods, and the prices of such resources are concomitantly bid up in the process. Yet the cue that the entrepreneur-producers have followed, the interest rate, has been FALSIFIED by the effects of THE CREDIT EXPANSION. From the point of view of the general public it would be better that such resources not be misdirected in this fashion. Real savings appropriately available for additional capital goods formation has not increased. Under the conditions of a short-lived credit expansion, the boom can be only be temporary."

But who knew and who could understand that this approach would be a short-term false fix???

Going further, Taylor expounded that under such interference, "the demand for consumer goods has not dropped, and the impropriety of enlargening and lengthening the production process as if it had is revealed once the credit expansion has terminated. THE COSTS INVESTED ARE SEEN AS UNJUSTIFIED because the longer waiting time to complete and implement the additional capacity to produce is inappropriate in view of the unaffected demand for consumer goods. Production expansions cannot be finished, AND THE STRUCTURES OF PRODUCTION, WHICH INVOLVES NUMEROUS LINKS IN THE LENGTHENED PRODUCTION CHAIN, IS THROWN OUT OF SMOOTH RUNNING ORDER. Liquidations and rearrangements of production are necessary in order to correct the undesirable and ‘unforseen’ effects of the malinvestments. The ACTUAL CONSUMPTION-SAVINGS RATIO is once again able to dictate the balance between shorter and longer or more roundabout approaches to production. The correction or adjustment process is what is commonly referred to as a recession or depression. If the duration of the credit expansion is not short, then the extent of malinvestments is compounded and the inevitable and eventual correction process is intensified."
Well, that brings us to the financial crisis and great recession which kicked off in 2008 when 27 MILLION risky and subprime loans, half of all mortgages in the U.S. (according to The American Spectator in May 2011 issue, What Hath Government Wrought by Peter Wallison) were involved in the government’s GSE housing bubble bust and policy disaster which even president Bush encouraged under the theory that it was the government’s role to promote home ownership. Just for the record, I was a Steve Forbes supporter during the Republican primaries for the 2000 presidential election because he had a better grasp and understanding of the workings and policies which are more compatible with free market economics, limited government which permits, without interference and arbitrary bureaucratic mandates and counterproductive structures, hard work, education and intelligence to form the basis and core of the American engine of innovation, prosperity, scientific and material progress. Not the nanny state government dependency serf subject master model.

Although, I would also say, that president Bush was a vastly superior president to Obama if we just compare their economic records. I will post my comparison between the two administrations in another paper at another time.

As far back as April 2001, in its 2002 budget request, the Bush administration pointed out that the GSE (government sponsored enterprises) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could "cause strong repercussions in financial markets." In 2003 the White House referred to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set up as "a systemic risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector."

On February 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve , in a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he emphatically warned that "we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." At another hearing he argued, "IF WE FAIL TO SEE GSE REGULATION WE INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF INSOLVENCY AND CRISIS."

And here we are today.

Thats why the Bush administration and friends in Congress fought to get regulations, supervision and oversight over these GSEs to ensure "the safety and soundness of their financial activities" but Democrats who were in charge of Congress hyperventilated, demagogued, blocked and prevented the same prudential rules and regulations that apply to private lending and financial organizations/firms in the name of suspending economic law and common sense via the foolish socialistic government activities that basically crashed the economy and caused the recession which has been prolonged by even more foolish and counterproductive socialist policies which unrealistically rest on the impossible and unrealistic notion and promise that some day, if we give up our liberty to some higher order of superiorly autonomous empowered human being and class of intellectually superior nobles with subjective, undefined and uncontrolled desires, which are somehow going to replace and abolish or ‘equally’ distribute the need for the means of exchange and resource allocation (money) in place of adults and civilians with desires and plans of their own -for their own lives and communities- then we will all live in harmony , peace and progress.

See Crime Punished And Unpunished POWERLINE
and also : Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats In Their Own Words
And also:

But these people haven’t learned anything, they must be stopped and defeated politically because they are clearly not learning the lessons of history or learning from their mistakes and we are all paying for it. All of us, even those who trusted and voted for them. The broken and silly promise of socialism is not worth the price payed in human liberty, wasted potential and energy.

Consider the following: "Since World War II, America has endured a dozen recessions, each one followed by a quick recovery. Each one of those PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES - especially those with severe economic downturns - produced rapid and substantive rebounds. In the three years following the Reagan recession of the early ‘80s, our economy averaged 7% annual growth." (Michael Medved) SEVEN PERCENT, as opposed to 1.3% today!!! And NINE of those twelve recessions lasted no longer than one month, according to Michael Medved. What is going on here?!



In Chapter 21 of the 1980 edition of his Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises reveals, to those who don’t already see it, that "private ownership of the means of production tends to shift control of production to the hands of those best fitted for this job and thus to their needs." This I quoted to another YOUTUBE viewer over at the following video: ""

Here is Congressman Ron Paul, who is a student of F.A. Hayek: "What Congress has done, and what the Fed has done, we’ve literally injected about $5.3 TRILLION DOLLARS and I don’t think we got very much for it. The national debt went up $5.1 TRILLION DOLLARS, real GDP [the economy] grew less than 1% so I don’t think we’ve gotten a whole lot. Unemployment hasn’t recovered... And one statistic that is very glaring is that if you look at how long people are unemployed, THE AVERAGE TIME USED TO BE 17 WEEKS, NOW ITS NEARLY 40 WEEKS they stay unemployed, so nothing there reassures me. And also, when we talk about prices, we’re always reassured there’s not that much inflation and we’re told they might START CALCULATING INFLATION DIFFERENTLY with a new CPI [consumer price index] - of course we changed our CPI a few years back. There’s still a free market group that calculates the CPI the old fashioned way and they come up with a figure, IN SPITE OF ALL THIS WEAK ECONOMY, the prices have gone up 35%, 9.4% every year and if you talk to the average housewife she’d probably believe the 9% rather than saying its only 2%. So I would say what we’ve been doing isn’t very reassuring with all this money expenditure.

"But my question is related to the overall policy. Spending all this money hasn’t helped and yet many allies that have endorsed so much what has been going on whether it’s the fed or the congress, they recognize that consumer spending is very very important AND THEY CONCENTRATE ON THAT. [Enter the Keynesian scam/socialist "stimulus" manipulation to poke and prod the sheeple in this direction or that]

"But the $5.1 TRILLION DOLLARS didn’t go to the consumers, it went to buying bad assets, it went to bailing out the banks, it went to buying bad companies and low and behold, the consumer didn’t end up getting this. They lost their job they lost their mortgages and houses and they’re STILL IN TROUBLE. And my question is, if you took that $5 TRILLION and said that consumer spending is good, you could have given every single person in this country $17,000 dollars. Why is it the program of both the congress and the fed to direct the money to the people who have been making alot of money instead of to the people if you argue that the consumer needs to spend the money -I obviously don’t advocate this but I would suggest that you know, maybe it could have worked better [...]"

He was talking to Treasury Secretary Ben Bernanke here, applying the reductio ad absurdum argument to the big bailout and the Keynesian prescription to the vexing and annoying matter of freedom. It is worth the pause to consider what it would mean for the economy and the government to actually handout the money like that which IS happening presently, through other programs and overinflated state pensions and benefits for government workers which are taxing the economy to the point right now at which as of today, July 29, 2011, the American economy has only grown 1.3% and the government is spending more than it is taking in, at risk of defaulting and going into further economic and fiscal distress, while the cost of living goes up for everyone. And all of this while the government grows, while the economy, productivity innovation prosperity and the individual shrinks.

And say that our ruling politicos were able to, in the direct way that Communism and Marx demanded, enact a direct redistribution of the economic "stimulus" program money to every individual in the country, rather than to more proximate parties involved financially in the situation? Then they would be right back at Communist square one: people would have money in their own hands again, and where would our political oligarchs be in this situation? Woops!

Fiat money + FDR + End The Fed RON PAUL

Many people hold misconceptions and bad ideas, but have good intentions. This is when reality and the truth should be introduced and considered, otherwise what do these people become other than extremists? As I like to say, false contentions poison innocent intentions.





-FABIAN SOCIALISM
-



[] US economy ‘has barely budged’: 1.3 percent growth in GDPRON SCHERER 07/29/2011http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0729/US-economy-has-barely-budged-1.3-percent-growth-in-GDP


[] The Problem is the Recovery, Not the Recession -MICHAEL MEDVED 06/06/2011http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=321&sid=493122

[] Keynes and the Reds -RALPH RAICO