Showing posts with label government intervention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government intervention. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Lemon capitalism
GM loses billions in the fourth quarter of 2009. Didn't the federal government "lend" GM billions of tax payer funds?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Creating more problems...
Ever wonder why that McDonald's salad costs more than the Big Mac? Well, it's no surprise that our government has something to do with it.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Let the bad investments die already
From the Mercury News:
VH: Here we go again. The Federal government riding the white horse over the hill to "help" out distressed homeowners. So instead of letting these bad investments go quickly to bankruptcy and clearing out the housing market, we have a vain attempt to prop up a market that shows very little signs of improvement. I don't see how this helps people who, after this small injection of public funds, will most likely lose their homes because they can't find a job or the value of their homes are much lower than what they are shelling out each month in mortgage payments. The irony in all this is that it was the Federal government that led all of these poor people down this path of destruction by implementing all sorts of "affordable housing" incentives. If the Feds want affordable housing now and they want a quick recovery of the housing market, why not let prices drop to their equilibrium? Instead, we get more public funds thrown at lost causes.
LAS VEGAS — President Obama unveiled a $1.5 billion program to aid the states hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, a small but targeted effort to address a housing problem that continues to resist government solutions.
The program, which administration officials called an "innovation fund," is modest in size and reach and comes as the administration's chief foreclosure-prevention program faces criticism for not doing more to help borrowers.
Speaking to the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Obama said the program would allow states to find new ways to help struggling homeowners. "That means that here in Nevada, we're going to be able to prevent some foreclosures that otherwise would have happened," he said Friday afternoon. "The goal is to target communities at the center of the crisis and to empower local agencies that know these communities best."
Obama made the same promise at a town hall meeting earlier in the day, telling about 1,700 people in Henderson, a suburb near Las Vegas, that "government has a responsibility to help deal with this problem."
VH: Here we go again. The Federal government riding the white horse over the hill to "help" out distressed homeowners. So instead of letting these bad investments go quickly to bankruptcy and clearing out the housing market, we have a vain attempt to prop up a market that shows very little signs of improvement. I don't see how this helps people who, after this small injection of public funds, will most likely lose their homes because they can't find a job or the value of their homes are much lower than what they are shelling out each month in mortgage payments. The irony in all this is that it was the Federal government that led all of these poor people down this path of destruction by implementing all sorts of "affordable housing" incentives. If the Feds want affordable housing now and they want a quick recovery of the housing market, why not let prices drop to their equilibrium? Instead, we get more public funds thrown at lost causes.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The U.S. government poisoned people during Prohibition
This can only be logical to the mind of a politician: The federal poisoning program.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Words of economic wisdom from Nancy Pelosi
From the WSJ:
Blue Dogs who are dragged into Speaker Pelosi’s office should be aware of just how she is selling the health care bill. Yesterday, she told supporters it represented “real change,” because it meant “a cap on your [health care] costs, but no cap on your benefit.”
Yup. This is the kind of ass-backwards economics that is driving health care "reform" by Democrats. Doesn't Pelosi understand that what she is proposing is simply economically untenable? Apparently not. Here's a video of Ms. Pelosi selling her brand of economics.
Blue Dogs who are dragged into Speaker Pelosi’s office should be aware of just how she is selling the health care bill. Yesterday, she told supporters it represented “real change,” because it meant “a cap on your [health care] costs, but no cap on your benefit.”
Yup. This is the kind of ass-backwards economics that is driving health care "reform" by Democrats. Doesn't Pelosi understand that what she is proposing is simply economically untenable? Apparently not. Here's a video of Ms. Pelosi selling her brand of economics.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Ron Paul vs. Bernanke
Watch as Ron Paul poses some very incisive questions and comments to Ben Bernanke during a recent congressional hearing. Also notice how Bernanke, a very intelligent and learned man, simply does not understand that he is part of a government bureaucracy that is slowly dragging the American economy into the hands of big government power.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Government Intervention, Regulatory Policy, and the Financial Crisis
When you hear the populist pabulum that deregulation was the prime cause of our financial crisis, take a pause and note that it is in a politician’s best interest to regulate industries because it places power and influence in his or her grasp. The opportunity for power coupled with a public outcry to "do something" is too great to resist.
Also, have you noticed that all the banks that have over-leveraged themselves are also the most highly regulated?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Best post I've read today on Geitner and government intervention in the economy.
Do yourself a favor and read this great post. From Jeff Perren over at Shaving Leviathan:
When that disaster comes, and capitalism is blamed once again, there will be increasing pressure for out and out nationalization of the banks, something to which this Administration is already far too philosophically inclined. (Some reports have them mulling it over already and, of course, to a degree, the implementation of TARP has produced that as a fait accompli.)
...But allowing individuals the freedom to succeed or fail is contrary to the entire mindset in Washington, as it is to much of the country on most points of the political compass. Many, far far too many, delude themselves — despite enormous evidence to the contrary — that government control of such matters is practical. This represents the (let us hope, temporary) triumph of large swaths of the Progressive philosophy, made possible in large part by unhealthy acceptance of Pragmatism over the past 100 years.
When that disaster comes, and capitalism is blamed once again, there will be increasing pressure for out and out nationalization of the banks, something to which this Administration is already far too philosophically inclined. (Some reports have them mulling it over already and, of course, to a degree, the implementation of TARP has produced that as a fait accompli.)
...But allowing individuals the freedom to succeed or fail is contrary to the entire mindset in Washington, as it is to much of the country on most points of the political compass. Many, far far too many, delude themselves — despite enormous evidence to the contrary — that government control of such matters is practical. This represents the (let us hope, temporary) triumph of large swaths of the Progressive philosophy, made possible in large part by unhealthy acceptance of Pragmatism over the past 100 years.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Importance of Failure
Tyler A. Watts over at Mises.org writes on the added danger of bailouts that our politicians can not grasp:
I don't buy the probailout folks' predictions of impending economic chaos. But what if they're right? What if the short-run pain in store is just too terrible to endure if we don't start bailing out key industries? After all, we're talking massive unemployment, a new wave of foreclosures, a shrinking economy — in a word, recession. If the dire forecasts of the bailouters are correct, we'd be stupid not to do it; we'd be like a beaver caught in a trap: slowly dying, yet too timid to chew off his own foot to escape.
Capitalism depends on three highly complementary, yet distinct, institutions: prices, property, and "profit and loss." Classical-liberal economists have demonstrated the essential role of these pillars of prosperity for centuries. These fundamental institutions of the market economy are like legs of a stool. If we gradually weaken one leg, we will eventually bring the stool toppling down — economic collapse.
In this light, the implications of bailout are clear. Bailouts are designed to insulate people from the effects of bad decisions. When market prices change dramatically, exposing yesterday's poor investment choices, bailouts come "to the rescue," promising those left holding the bag that they won't have to endure the full cost of their errors...
...Bailouts, then, attempt to erase the effects of losses, or economic failure. But such efforts inevitably undermine the loss aspect of "profit and loss." Profit and loss go together — like up and down, left and right, good and bad. If we try to do away with losses, we'll wind up diluting the meaning of profits. After all, why strive for profits if Uncle Sam will cover your losses with a bailout? Why bust your butt to compete and succeed if you can just clamor for a handout instead? Bailouts destroy the profit motive — and all the benefits of a competitive economy.
By removing the risk of failure, government inevitably creates an environment where crony-capitalism flourishes. And we end up with the same essential distortions in our economy that has lead to the financial crisis.
I don't buy the probailout folks' predictions of impending economic chaos. But what if they're right? What if the short-run pain in store is just too terrible to endure if we don't start bailing out key industries? After all, we're talking massive unemployment, a new wave of foreclosures, a shrinking economy — in a word, recession. If the dire forecasts of the bailouters are correct, we'd be stupid not to do it; we'd be like a beaver caught in a trap: slowly dying, yet too timid to chew off his own foot to escape.
Capitalism depends on three highly complementary, yet distinct, institutions: prices, property, and "profit and loss." Classical-liberal economists have demonstrated the essential role of these pillars of prosperity for centuries. These fundamental institutions of the market economy are like legs of a stool. If we gradually weaken one leg, we will eventually bring the stool toppling down — economic collapse.
In this light, the implications of bailout are clear. Bailouts are designed to insulate people from the effects of bad decisions. When market prices change dramatically, exposing yesterday's poor investment choices, bailouts come "to the rescue," promising those left holding the bag that they won't have to endure the full cost of their errors...
...Bailouts, then, attempt to erase the effects of losses, or economic failure. But such efforts inevitably undermine the loss aspect of "profit and loss." Profit and loss go together — like up and down, left and right, good and bad. If we try to do away with losses, we'll wind up diluting the meaning of profits. After all, why strive for profits if Uncle Sam will cover your losses with a bailout? Why bust your butt to compete and succeed if you can just clamor for a handout instead? Bailouts destroy the profit motive — and all the benefits of a competitive economy.
By removing the risk of failure, government inevitably creates an environment where crony-capitalism flourishes. And we end up with the same essential distortions in our economy that has lead to the financial crisis.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Obama and the Democrats use a crisis to implement their economic plan
Eat your heart out Naomi Klein. Here is an excerpt from Obama's speech today at George Mason University. George Mason must have been spinning in his grave:
It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy – where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.
To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced – jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.
To improve the quality of our health care while lowering its cost, we will make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized. This will cut waste, eliminate red tape, and reduce the need to repeat expensive medical tests. But it just won’t save billions of dollars and thousands of jobs – it will save lives by reducing the deadly but preventable medical errors that pervade our health care system.
Finally, this recovery and reinvestment plan will provide immediate relief to states, workers, and families who are bearing the brunt of this recession. To get people spending again, 95% of working families will receive a $1,000 tax cut – the first stage of a middle-class tax cut that I promised during the campaign and will include in our next budget. To help Americans who have lost their jobs and can’t find new ones, we’ll continue the bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage to help them through this crisis. Government at every level will have to tighten its belt, but we’ll help struggling states avoid harmful budget cuts, as long as they take responsibility and use the money to maintain essential services like police, fire, education, and health care.
Comment: My first thought after listening to this speech was how much is it going to cost and how long is it going to take to pay for it? With the "Boomer" generation getting ready to retire in great numbers over the next several years or so, social security and Medicare are going to be put to the test. Adding the so-called "Recovery and Reinvestment plan" and the myraid of other government implemented plans Obama spoke of during this speech may end up just as similiar government plans did during the Great Depression.
It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy – where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.
To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced – jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.
To improve the quality of our health care while lowering its cost, we will make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized. This will cut waste, eliminate red tape, and reduce the need to repeat expensive medical tests. But it just won’t save billions of dollars and thousands of jobs – it will save lives by reducing the deadly but preventable medical errors that pervade our health care system.
Finally, this recovery and reinvestment plan will provide immediate relief to states, workers, and families who are bearing the brunt of this recession. To get people spending again, 95% of working families will receive a $1,000 tax cut – the first stage of a middle-class tax cut that I promised during the campaign and will include in our next budget. To help Americans who have lost their jobs and can’t find new ones, we’ll continue the bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage to help them through this crisis. Government at every level will have to tighten its belt, but we’ll help struggling states avoid harmful budget cuts, as long as they take responsibility and use the money to maintain essential services like police, fire, education, and health care.
Comment: My first thought after listening to this speech was how much is it going to cost and how long is it going to take to pay for it? With the "Boomer" generation getting ready to retire in great numbers over the next several years or so, social security and Medicare are going to be put to the test. Adding the so-called "Recovery and Reinvestment plan" and the myraid of other government implemented plans Obama spoke of during this speech may end up just as similiar government plans did during the Great Depression.
The Road to Serfdom
Prof. Thomas E. Woods explores the reason why the Great Depression lasted for as long as it did: Interventionist economics. We may be on the road to serfdom today because the federal government is adopting similiar policies to those implemented during the 1930's in order to dig the economy out of its current woes.
HT: Liberty Pen
HT: Liberty Pen
Monday, December 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)