Archive
Scenario for the President
2) Stand there and we’ll take a guess about just how far the market can crash. But we’re being told it is as bad/worse than 1929.
If you are standing on principles, the speed of the decision doesn’t matter as much.
I think the scenario sort-of makes one point: Government gets involved with “A” in mind (in this case the S&L loans or Financial Bailout.) First blush is positive. But as with most if not all government involvement, it gets hijacked, and turned into something not intended. Go back (choose the years) and we will see the examples. Income tax; FDR’s programs; Welfare; The Great Society programs; etc. etc. I don’t know them all.
My opinion? Given the above scenario, the President should choose 2, and let Lehman Brothers collapse. And he should have pressured the Fed to not get involved in helping bail them out. (Or maybe he didn’t know cuz it was secretive, but he could have found out, and fired the guy for doing it.) Also, allowing the Fed to facilitate JP Morgan Chase’s purchase of Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. Yes these banks should have failed. There’s no way that a banking system performing the kinds of stunts that they have been performing should have been bailed out with taxpayers money. You think laissez faire is adversely affected by uncertainty (absence of full information)? Absolutely it is. What about Keynesianism and other interventionist policies? Are they immune to the ails of uncertainty? Absolutely not. And the market forces will correct for any uncertainty a LOT quicker than a poor government policy that has become LAW and may take generations to overcome. We’re still paying for the ones from 60-70 years ago. In fact, the government injects it’s own uncertainty into the system, but more on that below.
We appear to have changed topics from Bush vs. the Constitution, and maybe for good reason after listening to Paul, Jeff and Deon’s points. One of the best conservative minds — possibly ever — was Edmund Burke. I bring him into the Constitution discussion because he advocated gradual change, but at the same time not destroying the pillars of freedom with our experimental Acts. I’m equating his mentioning of Experimental Acts of his time to the Patriot Acts of our time. Yes we have to change with the times as Burke says (e.g. we have to deal with terrorists), but according to him, it’s not worth destroying the pillars of liberty that we have built our society on in order to accomplish that change. If we do so, we are destroying the foundation upon which our nation is built.
In terms of the banking issues, absolutely let Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns fail. Don’t let the Fed get involved at all. The banks made bad business decisions. There is tons of evidence of corruption. Why inject loans into that? What is the economic principle that that decision is based on? In my opinion the decision was based on fear. Once again, we have a government trying — through their macro economic policies — to right the ship. “We can fix it. We can control the market forces.” And once again, the evidence is that they can’t. It might have stabilized some things for the time being, but anyone watching KNOWS with their gut that this glut of spending is going to have to be paid for at some point, and it’s going to be worse when it’s time to pay the piper. The Fear Move didn’t do anything but delay a market correction. Check out Karl Denninger if you’d like to read more.
AND, there are even some studies, like this one by the Stanford economist John Taylor, which purports to show (pdf) that the credit markets actually did not react all that badly to Lehman going under and that the crisis was really the product of market uncertainty about the effects of government action. So, the “market” reacted not all that badly to a market force of letting a bank go under, but the real market crisis started after the government decided to get involved to try to “control” the natural market forces? Add to this the fact that the bond market says it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffet than to Barak Obama, and I think we see what Keynesian fiscal policies bring to the table in terms of uncertainty.
See, now this makes sense to me.
I’m running for President of the United States of America
OK, play along with me here…
It is April of 2012. The last four years have been difficult for our country. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued with no end in sight. Worse yet, the Obama administration has run huge budget deficits in the last three years that has increased the U.S. debt by almost 6 trillion dollars. In addition, the economy continues to stagnate, unemployment is still over 10% and many Americans have ceased looking for work. Obama’s healthcare package was passed in a dramatically scaled back version in 2010. And, while the Cap and Trade bill was stopped, many of its provisions have been instituted though executive mandates, and departmental directives.
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have been on a course of self-destruction. In 2008, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain each spent record amounts trying to win the Republican nomination. Again in 2011 increased spending has been accompanied by increasingly negative campaigns. The battles of the different factions of the Republican Party have been so intense that many voters have become apathetic, if not down right hostile to politics in general. Early polling data in 2012 shows than none of the Republican candidates would beat Obama in the general election. The Republican Party’s “big tent strategy” (seeking for moderate swing voters) appears to be a total failure. NBC Nightly News may have summed it up best saying, “America has not seen such a lack of political leadership since the 1880s. The candidates are not only bankrupt financially, but are destitute when it comes to ideas.”
I am a delegate to the Republican Party National Convention in 2012. Last night the president of the RNC delivered a stirring address to all presidential candidates as well as the delegates to the national convention via the Internet. He called for all candidates and delegates to put previous loyalties aside and search for a single candidate that will unify both the party and the nation. In response, all three top runners (Romney, Giuliani, and Palin) have offered to withdraw their names as candidates if the RNC can find a better candidate in the next 2 weeks. Due to my leadership and support of the RNC President, he has said that if I can get create some of my own ground swell (grass-roots support), he will ensure that I will be part of the select group that gets to address the convention in the coming weeks.
So stay tuned. You just might be witnessing the discovery of the next JFK. Or better. I will be sharing my platform of ideas describing the necessary changes I believe we need in America on Friday, March 5th.
Will I win? Do I stand a chance? Check back and see as I post how the convention unfolds and the voting results over the coming days.
If you have any suggestions for what changes you would like to see, you’d better get them in. Just leave a comment…one of the RNC aides will get to it.