Category Archives: Individualism Vs. Collectivism

Updated: Buck Obama; Don’t Borrow

Barack Obama, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Inflation

Writes economist Peter Schiff:

“After more than a decade of unsustainable borrowing and spending, the private sector is currently attempting to restore balance through reduced consumer and mortgage credit, greater savings, and lower asset prices. With its trillions of dollars of credit injections and stimulus programs, the government hopes to allay this process by force-feeding Americans a diet of more borrowing. They feel that a restored securitization market will help. It won’t. It will just grease the skids for a quicker collapse.

Credit, whether securitized or not, cannot be created out of thin air. It only comes into existence though savings, which must be preceded by under-consumption. Since savings are scarce, any government guarantees toward consumer credit merely crowd out credit that might otherwise have been available to business. During the previous decade too much credit was extended to consumers and not enough to producers (securitization focused almost exclusively on consumer debt).

The market is trying to correct this misallocation, but government policy is standing in the way. When consumers borrow and spend, society gains nothing. When producers borrow and invest, our capital stock is improved, and we all benefit from the increased productivity.”

Updated (Feb 19): “All credit is debt,” explained the brilliant Henry Hazlitt. “All loans, in the eyes of honest borrowers, must eventually be repaid. Proposals for an increased volume of credit, therefore, are merely another name for proposals for an increased burden of debt. They would seem considerably less inviting if they were habitually referred to by the second name instead of by the first.”

Updated: Buck Obama; Don't Borrow

Barack Obama, Federal Reserve Bank, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Inflation

Writes economist Peter Schiff:

“After more than a decade of unsustainable borrowing and spending, the private sector is currently attempting to restore balance through reduced consumer and mortgage credit, greater savings, and lower asset prices. With its trillions of dollars of credit injections and stimulus programs, the government hopes to allay this process by force-feeding Americans a diet of more borrowing. They feel that a restored securitization market will help. It won’t. It will just grease the skids for a quicker collapse.

Credit, whether securitized or not, cannot be created out of thin air. It only comes into existence though savings, which must be preceded by under-consumption. Since savings are scarce, any government guarantees toward consumer credit merely crowd out credit that might otherwise have been available to business. During the previous decade too much credit was extended to consumers and not enough to producers (securitization focused almost exclusively on consumer debt).

The market is trying to correct this misallocation, but government policy is standing in the way. When consumers borrow and spend, society gains nothing. When producers borrow and invest, our capital stock is improved, and we all benefit from the increased productivity.”

Updated (Feb 19): “All credit is debt,” explained the brilliant Henry Hazlitt. “All loans, in the eyes of honest borrowers, must eventually be repaid. Proposals for an increased volume of credit, therefore, are merely another name for proposals for an increased burden of debt. They would seem considerably less inviting if they were habitually referred to by the second name instead of by the first.”

Updated: Memo To Ditto Heads: Obama Didn’t Do It

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Economy, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Inflation, libertarianism

Just in case ditto heads are still blaming Obama for the economic depression we’re in, here’s a reality check, and an excerpt from the CNN documentary, “I.O.U.S.A.”:

January 1, 2000, Federal Debt: $5.6 Trillion Dollars.

George W. Bush is declared the winner of the 2000 election.

One of his first priorities is pushing a large tax cut.

September 11, the attacks put the U.S. on war footing.

Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost hundreds of billions.

May 1, 2003, Federal debt: $6.5 trillion.

Through Bush’s first term, the Fed cuts interest rates 12 times. [Creating the glut of malinvestment and spending]

The dollar begins a long, steep decline against other currencies.

Cheap credit floods the housing market.

Many home buyers grab risky, non-fixed mortgages. [Helped along by existing federal laws, to which Bush added,mandating loans to risky minorities]

The war drags on.

Bush signs into law Medicare-D, an expensive drug benefit program.

Bush wins re-election on November 3, 2004.

Federal debt: About $10.7 trillion and 75 percent of GDP.

Federal deficit: $455 billion … and now we’re talking trillions for several years going forward.

[Snip]

As we’ve pointed, the totality of US government liabilities exceeds the worth of its citizens.

Also pointed out in this space, years back, is that with an extremely high debt-to-GDP ratio, the US would not be admitted to the company of socialists: the EU. The US’s debt is about 75 percent of its GDP.

I’m often asked what is to be expected under these dire circumstances.

Assets will continue to devalue. Saving will be difficult; retirement near impossible, because, with the continuing devaluation of the dollar, savings depreciate. Hyperinflation is a very real threat, as the amount of goods in the economy decreases, and the supply of worthless paper increases.

Now Obama’s thinking is wrongheaded: he is as clueless as Republicans about the economy and will only prolong the agony. Nevertheless, “I didn’t do it” (Bart Simpson’s famous phrase) is an appropriate defense of Barack.

Update: In response to comments. I do hope the Addiction to that Rush is not on display.

So it’s Obama’s deficit as it is Bush’s??? ‘Cmon; don’t be a ditto head. As bad as he is, Obama is probably one of the least influential politicians to date, given his short tenure in office. (He is destined to change that, of course.) Didn’t ditto heads make that very point in arguing against his candidacy?

This is not about giving anyone a pass. However, spreading irresponsibility is just what ditto heads and democrats like. This allows their respective point men and women to continue to commit legalized crimes, because responsibility in government is always socialized. “Don’t play the blame game” is the political parasite’s favored term.

No, Obama was a relatively obscure politician until now. Bush and Cheney—they ought to have been impeached. Blame for the depression belongs to their administration and to its foreign, fiscal and monetary policy.

To collectivize responsibility and spread it around equally is to oblige the political operatives, and reward them for their crimes. That’s precisely what they want. You’ve fallen into their trap. I’m afraid responsibility must be assigned with laser-like precision.

While on the issue of history, not revisionism, one more thing: The only commentators deserving credit for warning of the financial crisis are my fractious political tribe—not all, but certain libertarians and assorted paleos. And Ron Paul always. Of course, because, other than Paul, we are relatively unknown, the likes of Stephen Moore, who wrote odes to Bush’s “ownership society,” can remake themselves into all-knowing gurus, without crediting their betters.

No one in the age of the idiot will be the wiser.

Update II: Sliming Sarah (& On Feminism Vs. Individualism)

Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections 2008, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, John McCain, Journalism, Sarah Palin, War

CNN’s Campbell Brown has been a woman possessed even since Palin appeared on the political scene. As I write, she is “investigating” how Sarah Palin’s Pentecostal faith and the practices of her church may impact her political outlook. (The segment was evidently aired earlier today. It didn’t cause Blitzer such apoplexy.)

By logical extension, does Brown—who is not working with much, if you know what I mean—wish to imply that hanging around a Black Liberation Church for 20 years—a church that states its members “are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization”—might poison a presidential candidate’s worldview?

At the time, she and her ilk denied that being a proud, long-time member of a separatist, white-hating “Black-Value-System” community had any bearing on Barack’s worldview.

Update I (September 10): INDIVIDUALISM VS. FEMINISM. our long-time, valued reader, young Alex (see his comments below), seems quite confused lately, inundating the blog with dogmatic comments asserting Sarah Palin’s feminist bona fides.

Sarah Palin is an individualist, not a feminist. Fulfilling one’s potential doesn’t make one a feminist. Sarah Palin is not a woman’s issues liberationist; but an individualist; a doer. She sees a problem in her community and she sets about solving it. She’s an individual doing her best, as she sees it, to improve herself and the community she lives in. That seems to be her calling. She is not doing this qua woman, but as an individual. Since when is fulfilling one’s potential always a manifestation of a feminist mindset when a woman is concerned?

I suspect that the conservative prattle about sexism, which Alex has correctly derided, has confused our friend. Alex is right about the stupidity of conservatives adopting feminism rather than articulating Palin’s achievements in the language of individualism.

Does the fact that I wish to fulfill my potential as a writer make me a feminist? No; I’m an individualist through and through.

As to the gender roles in the Palin household: In the early years of their marriage, the very manly first Dude supported his wife and their children. Sarah Palin then got involved with the school—an involvement that led to a career. As her career evolved, the family organization changed. Is this feminism at work? Hardly! These are individuals interacting and completing one another at different stages of their lives.

I’d like one day to retire my brilliant husband and see him cook for me and play guitar all day. Does that make me a feminist? Au Contraire; that’s the give and take between mature, loving individuals.

Update II (Sep. 11): The Silly Sex continues to sound off over Sarah Palin. This time a Salon.com feminist evinces what in our household is known as the “V” Factor. “V” stands not for victory, but for the inability of a woman to transcend her genitals. Quite common among distaff America. Here are the histrionics of a uterus named Rebecca Traister:

“Palin’s femininity is one that is recognizable to most women: She’s the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much. The kind of woman who, as Jessica Grose at Jezebel has eloquently noted, achieves her power by doing everything modern women believed they did not have to do: presenting herself as maternal and sexual, sucking up to men, evincing an absolute lack of native ambition, instead emphasizing her luck as the recipient of strong male support and approval. It works because these stances do not upset antiquated gender norms. So when the moment comes, when tolerance for and interest in female power have been forcibly expanded by Clinton, a woman more willing to throw elbows and defy gender expectations but who falls short of the goal, Palin is there, tapped as a supposedly perfect substitute by powerful men who appreciate her charms. …”

“The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin’s nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin’s candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism. Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like.”