Comments on: Update II: Obama: 'You Have Some People … Who Philosophically Think Government Has No Business Interfering In The Marketplace'

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:05:32 +0000

To John Danforth - Say what you want but 16 million men going to war "solved" the unemployment problem. The privations of 12 years of a bad economy and 4 years of war and the destruction of European competitors led to a sort of stable economic revival in the 1940's and 1950's. However, I don't find that this made Keynes right. Ironically, the US dollar was still relatively sound when the War debts were made in the 1940's. That will not be the case when the Multi-Trillion-$$$ bills come due around Baby Boom Retirement Armageddon circa 2020. 90 years of creeping socialism will most likely collapse around then.

By: John Danforth

John Danforth — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:10:30 +0000

As I’ve warned before:

When this ‘plan’ has the effect of trashing the dollar and causing widespread unemployment, with millions of families being put out of their homes, these tapeworms [LOL] are going to resort to the other last resort ‘tool’ at their disposal.

War.

To a man, the Keynesians who idolize FDR all think it was the WWII that finally brought the country out of depression. It’s the Broken Window Fallacy applied to wholesale death and destruction.

Be prepared.

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:08:40 +0000

I did not watch this press conference. However, from the transcript provided, it seemed to me that Mr. Obama knew exactly whom he would like to call upon for questions: “Chuck Todd. Where’s Chuck?”

Not having watched the session, I don’t know if it appeared “scripted” to the viewer. Looking at the transcript alone, I wonder.

In addition, it’s important to remember that many Americans believe that the Great Depression occurred because of “corporate greed” (not the Federal Reserve’s meddling) and that WWII occurred because the League of Nations wasn’t given enough power.

What happens when you combine a (relatively) ignorant American public with a charismatic leader like Obama? I shudder to think of the prospect.

By: Tatosian

Tatosian — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:57:17 +0000

This stuff about matters getting worse over the last three months roughly coincides with obama’s being elected doesn’t it?
Perhaps the busy businessmen are getting out of Dodge while the gettins still good yes?
Just wondering

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:08:16 +0000

Poster H. Engelbrecht has it right. In fact, it was Hoover who insisted on keeping wages high during 1930-1932 that led to additional layoffs. Congress made it even worse with Davis-Bacon and Hawley-Smoot laws. Then FDR added the NRA to keep wages high. Ironically, with WWII, wages went effectively down with taxes, warbonds, rationing, and 16 million men overseas on subsistence pay and employment went up. How do people think that Obama can “create” 4 million new jobs out of thin air on fiat credit? // The other sad part is that there is hardly anything left of a truly private industry. Most of the large companies are de facto arms of the state – the auto companies, big steel, defense industry, banks, utilities… – so if there even is a paper recovery, it will basically be controlled/manipulated by government, lobbyists, and the people like Robert Rubin who rotate back and forth to the Citigroups of the “private” sector.

By: H Engelbrecht

H Engelbrecht — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:18:39 +0000

His speech reads like a fairytale. (If I were not in such decent company I’d tell you the difference between European and American fairytales.)

He seems to believe that philosophical “objections” to government intervention is exactly that, metaphysical musings with no practical implications. He could not be more wrong. As an example a friend of mine running a firm (I’d prefer to not divulge more detail) was also hit by the economic crisis (in SA). Instead of having to lay off workers, they got everyone to agree to a pay-cut, and no-one had to be laid off. Now had these workers’ salaries been subject to minimum wages, or had they belonged to a union, you can bet a pay-cut would not have been allowed/accepted and today a few workers would have been unemployed. Therefore, not being subject to legislated minimum wages allowed everyone to keep their jobs.

[Fabulous points with respect to the natural laws of economics.]

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:19:41 +0000

My co-workers and I went to an Irish bar tonight after learning about a job layoff at our company. The mood was not a cheery one, to say the least. No sooner did the drinks arrive when Obama’s lie-fest conference came on the TV. Couldn’t they have shown an old soccer game instead?

Anyway, the chatter was too loud from the customers to hear what the Liar-in-Chief was peddling to the pliant media. Thank God. It was simply too painful to watch.

What this man and this government (and that of his predecessors) is doing sickens me. When does economic sanity prevail? Must we wade into a deep ravine, a la Wile E. Coyote, before coming to our collective senses?

Wake the hell up, people. No nation will ever spend itself into prosperity. Time to save, invest, and produce again, and we need to do it with honest money this time.