Category Archives: Free Markets

Statism Second Nature to Newt

Business, Elections, Free Markets, Gender, Judaism & Jews, Pop-Culture, The State, Welfare

Rudderless and clueless: That’s Newt Gingrich. First he got fired up over the fact of firing in the private sector, attacking “Mitt Romney for what are the prerogatives of private property and the fiduciary duty of a CEO managing private property to fire workers when necessary.”

Now Newt is raging against Romney’s decision, taken in 2003, to veto “a $600,000 expenditure while he was Massachusetts governor that would have paid for kosher meals for seniors in nursing homes on Medicaid, the New York Post reported last week.”

In Gingrich we have someone who professes to champion limited, constitutional government. At the same time, he attacks his opponent because of that opponent’s failure to approve a welfare program. Newt’s attacks, moreover, are almost intuitive and without second thought.

This tells you how foreign the idea of limited government is to Newt Gingrich.

Statism is second nature to Newt.

Other than that, Gingrich happens to be a particularly smug gas bag.

While Romney should not be upbraided for refusing to fleece taxpayers for a special constituency, Romney’s background is replete with similar unkosher statist instincts. For example, “a decision Romney made in 2005 that said all hospitals in the state were required to provide the Plan B birth control pill under Medicaid. At the time, Romney said the decision was made based on legal advice from a state attorney, according to Globe coverage of the issue.”

Although, the above does sound like a legal decision, driven perhaps by fears of courts challenges and law-suits.

It’s possible that Mitt was mortified at the likely possibility that Massachusetts women would “spontaneously” “contract” Tourettes and other twitches should the state deign to deprive them of their God-given right to contraceptives.

UPDATED: Fired Up Over Firing

Business, Capitalism, Economy, Elections, Free Markets, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Reason, Republicans

As I pointed out weeks ago on an RT broadcast, Newt Gingrich attacked Mitt Romney for what are the prerogatives of private property and the fiduciary duty of a CEO managing private property: firing people or evicting them from private property.

Rush Limbaugh doesn’t quite put it in such uncompromising terms, but he points out today what a feat of unparalleled moronity is the specter of “capitalism being attacked by the Republican” presidential front-runners.” “It’s senseless. It doesn’t make any sense,” gushes Rush.

Establishment conservatives only acknowledge reality once their own kind awakens to it, in this instance, Romeny’s vigorous defense of profits was noticed by Rush due to National Review’s Jay Nordlinger, who has rightly derides Mitt Romeny’s anti-capitalism detractors.

“Over and over, Romney defends and explains capitalism. And he’s supposed to be the RINO and squish in the race?” The one guy out there defending capitalism, the one guy out there trying to explain corporate profits to the Occupy crowd, he’s the squish, he’s the moderate, he’s the guy that we have the problem with? “That’s what I read in the conservative blogosphere, every day. What do you have to do to be a ‘real conservative’? Speak bad English and belch?

[Don’t bother to post here in reply if you are unable to separate this episode from the actors you dislike, and are wont to launch into a, “I hate all establishment conservatives, therefore I, lazily, refuse to address anything they say or do, right or wrong, and demand that you, Ilana, appease my idiocy.]

UPDATE: Paul defends Romney ‘fire’ comment and history at Bain. Good for him.

What is interesting is that dumbo Dana Bash—a CNN reporter whose love for Obama is second only to Jessica Yellin’s, another CNN pack animal—spun the Paul response as strategic, rather than principled. She’s not even an “analyst,” for what that title’s worth at CNN, yet she’s parsing a Paul response for markets (a thing she has no grasp of) as a response for politics. Yellin is now, as I write, yelling with excitement because, naming anonymous sources (isn’t that a no-no in Journalism, unless a matter of life-and-death?), she has had confirmation from her Man’s camp (BHO), that Romney has unraveled in the past 48 hours. Weird. Didn’t he just win a New Hampshire Primary?

Save the People; Fail the EU

Economy, EU, Europe, Federal Reserve Bank, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Iran, Political Economy, Propaganda, Trade

“The EU is our biggest trading partner. We cannot afford to let it fail. We send much of our goods and services to Europe. We share their values. We want to crush Iran with our European pals. They bomb and regulate the world with us. If the Eurozone goes down in flames; if we let them—we’ll be next.” So said President Barack Obama on November 28. Well, sort of. (Okay, I’ve ad-libbed a LOT, but I think I know my president by now.)

Obama was entertaining leaders of the European Union. He promised them that America would stand ready to do its part to help them withstand the Eurozone crisis.

The stakes are too high, you say? For whom, Mr. President? Cui Bono? Who Benefits, Barack?

Ask yourself that question each time you hear a reporter/pundit/analyst/politician insist that the EU and the Euro zone cannot be allowed to fail.

In reply to the question as to what will happen if this colossus collapses, the stakeholders above parrot a bunch of non sequiturs or circular arguments. In the tradition of “a statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it,” these reasons don’t necessarily obtain:

We can’t allow the thing to fail because the stakes are too high. Again: For whom?

David Böcking of Spiegel Online (a most intelligent newspaper; the Germans are impressive) advances the arguments against the break-up of the Eurozone. These are mostly legalistic, and are not rooted in real economic realities. The treaties, observes Böcking, don’t allow for easy disengagement. Legal disputes could arise over debt owed if the seceding country had borrowed money. And, mostly, sinecured EU official would lose sway on the world stage.

Brace for impact, if you believed these bastards, but here are the economic realities:

We flesh-and-blood Americans trade not with Barack or with Brussels, the seat of the European central government, but rather with the people of Belgium, the Netherland, Germany, France. If the financial institutions into which Europeans and Americans have been herded by bureaucrats on both sides of the Atlantic collapse, well then, individual producers and traders will find a way to make a living without these artificial, inorganic structures.

This is a failure of government, not of all the people, although some of the governed, maybe even the majority, have failed. The people who’ve failed are those who have eaten the state’s forbidden fruit.

Freak Street

Business, Capitalism, Economy, Free Markets, Government, Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Taxation

The freaks of the Occupy Wall Street (bowel) movement make it plain that they want what Charles Payne of the Fox Business Network has worked so hard to attain. Their case? That Payne, who began his business in a Harlem basement apartment, with monies borrowed from family and friends, owes his success to the rabble and its willing sponsor, government.

Yes, statists and their prized sponsors—moochers and looters—like to claim that if not for the state, to whose coffers they hardly contribute—man would be unable to produce.

That’s like saying that the tick created the dog! Production predates government predation. Government doesn’t produce wealth—it only consumes it. What, pray tell, would government have fed off if people were not hard at work well before the advent of the bureaucracy? As usual, the statists have it topsy-turvy. First came the individual—he is the basic unit of society, without which there can be no society. And without man’s labor there is no wealth for government to siphon.

Meet two more good Americans: Derek and John Tabacco, proprietors of a small business on Wall Street. The two businessmen staged a counter-protest against the Occupiers, holding up neon green signs that read “Occupy a Desk!“ and ”Get a Job.”

“We got a bunch of small business owners together…and we thought that ‘hey, any good occupation couldn’t be ended without some resistance,’” John told Fox News, adding that there was a coalition of about 50 small business owners who are part of his movement.
“They were coming after us , they were screaming at us, trying to get in our face, putting their hands on us,” he said. He also identified with the “53%” — the group that pays taxes that the other 47% doesn’t — and said the “silent majority” was giving them the thumbs up during their counter-protest.

[The Blaze]

Predictably, the slimy Salon.com tries to discredit the Tabacco brothers’ case for industry and work by discrediting them.