Tonight Washington State Senatorial candidates Pattie Murray (D) and Dino Rossi (R) debated. Mr. Rossi has a record in the Washington State Legislature of cost cutting to balance the budget. Senator Murray has a voting record in the US Senate making her the most liberal member of that body. She is running away from that record to a certain extent while also reminding voters of government money that she brought to the state. Dino reminded us of the practice in congress that our representatives use to get support for spending in their state. They vote for projects in other states in exchange. Dino Rossi is no RINO (Republican in Name only), but neither is he a Tea Partier. He seemed to be lack-luster in his early TV spots denouncing the Obama policies. He seems to be only half-heartedly against Cap-and-Trade, if he is against it at all. Nevertheless, his vote will be 90% conservative as apposed to Murray's 99% in favor of BHO and Majority Leader Harry Reid's agenda. Several other House and Senate races involve similar match ups. The Republicans and the nation need to win a majority of those races.
The conservative view is that economic difficulties stem from government intervention in the economy. Rossi gives this view lip service. Senator Murray does not seem to even understand the concept. Our current national economic problems were caused not only by decades of government actions but specifically by laws requiring banks to loan to bad credit risks. Because Freddy and Fanny were buying most of these loans from the banks, the banks were not too worried. The government was implicitly promising a bail-out if needed, and it was needed. All kinds of other bail-outs and government 'stimulus' spending followed. Those government actions are what is causing the current economic slow-down. It will turn into economic collapse unless we change course immediately.
BHO and his allies in congress have taken over the domestic auto industry, except for Ford Motor Company. They have taken over the biggest insurance company directly, and through the health care law, have taken over all of the health insurance industry. They have directly taken over many banks and investment companies and through the Wall Street 'Reform' bill, have effectively taken over all of the rest of that industry. In the Health Care bill there were provisions to take over more aspects of the economy, student loans, for instance. The laws granting bail-outs to state teachers and other government employees, have taken more control from the states over these employees. Many, many, laws and obscure provisions hidden in the massive Wall Street and Health Care monstrosities, set up new government agencies to control the people even more. Now, with Cap-and-Trade, they plan on controlling energy production, use, and distribution. Those industries are already highly regulated. To help them gain and keep control over the people, they want even more control over the Internet and talk radio. Since they already have control of the mainstream TV and print media, they will gain virtual complete say over what we, the people, are told to believe.
These massive government actions, most of which are for political not economic purposed, will not help the economy. In fact they are causing many problems that continue to get worse. As stated here and elsewhere, prices must lower and bankrupt concerns must be liquidated for markets to return to normal functioning. That is not happening. Government is creating money and debt at breakneck speed to shore-up housing prices, wages, and many industries (such as banking). This is postponing the inevitable and making the inevitable worse. Even if Republicans were to gain control in congress, there would likely be a long uphill climb.
Regarding Senate races, after the debacle of Reid's performance in his debate with Sharon Angle today, his chances of retaining his seat declined dramatically.
Showing posts with label cap-and-trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap-and-trade. Show all posts
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
What We Never Wanted to Know about Politics but Were Forced to Find Out
This post is about "Government by Crisis." It should not be necessary. Anyone with the least political savvy, and it's hard to avoid having a little now days, should already know what it is all about. Yet still Barrack Husein Obama comes on the radio (I don't watch TV) and says: "Now look! these (fill in the blank) caused the mess we're in and now they don't want us to fix it. The few common sense measures in this legislation (of 3,000 pages) will prevent (fill in the blank) in the future. Don't worry. Pass this bill, It will save us from... (whatever)."
This was the tactic used for the bank bail-outs, auto take-overs, health care take-over, student loan program take-over, etc. It is being used this minute for the Wall Street Regulation, (or take-over?), bill. It will be used for internet and other media control and/or bailout and for Cap-and-Trade. BHO has a solution for any crisis (or pseudo crisis that the Central Committee can invent). All we have to do is surrender some more liberty (and money). As Ben F. said, "Those who surrender freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security."
That is why the Tea Party Movement says that this is a "Time for Choosing:" liberty or otherwise.
By the way, I think that BHO's slow response to the Gulf oil leak was because it took him by surprise. He and the Central Committee did not yet have a plan to exploit that crisis. If it got worse while they waited, all the better. Anyway, it shows that oil is bad, and that is good... whatever.
This was the tactic used for the bank bail-outs, auto take-overs, health care take-over, student loan program take-over, etc. It is being used this minute for the Wall Street Regulation, (or take-over?), bill. It will be used for internet and other media control and/or bailout and for Cap-and-Trade. BHO has a solution for any crisis (or pseudo crisis that the Central Committee can invent). All we have to do is surrender some more liberty (and money). As Ben F. said, "Those who surrender freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security."
That is why the Tea Party Movement says that this is a "Time for Choosing:" liberty or otherwise.
By the way, I think that BHO's slow response to the Gulf oil leak was because it took him by surprise. He and the Central Committee did not yet have a plan to exploit that crisis. If it got worse while they waited, all the better. Anyway, it shows that oil is bad, and that is good... whatever.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Global Warming Non-Debate Continues
There is so much to find fault with in the stance of man-made-global-warming [MMGW] advocates (warmies) that it is astounding that so little notice is taken of those faults. Let me reiterate a few:
1) The proponent of a policy has the burden of establishing a case for the adoption of their policy. This is particularly true of a major policy change like cap-and-trade, which would significantly increase the cost of our most important fuel sources. Instead of making the case, they ask that we accept on authority alone, the conclusions of scientists. They have never simply and clearly explained either their MMGW theory or their Cap-and-trade proposal, much less made their prime fascia case.
2) Unlike the claim made by proponents, there is not a consensus among scientist that MMGW is a concern. Unfortunately, the government bodies that wield the most political weight in matters of science seem to have been co-opted by the warmies. They will not let the dissenters be heard. They discredit them and the publications in which dissenting views have been published.
3) The internet, being thus far free of government control, does give dissenters a voice. An interesting website that I linked to in an earlier post (and which I will check on) offers several scientific arguments against MMGW. One argument states that whereas it it true that CO2 absorbs and reradiates heat radiation, thus returning to earth heat that would be lost, it absorbs only heat radiated in specific wavelengths. (What wave lengths and under what conditions co2 absorbs radiation and what it does with the heat thus absorbed would be part of the theory that the proponents should be more fully explaining, but which they do not.) The website in question calculates the heat lost due to this process and concludes that even if there was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation within the given wavelengths, it would not have a significant affect on climate. (Perhaps the proponents have ways of explaining their way around this but they will not say, except that their computer model says that the result will be warming, a LOT of warming, we better really be scared-- and that they say is their scientific opinion.)
4) Eventhough he theory of the proponents is never fully stated (even to a first approximation), they do (or at least did initially) offer empirical evidence of recent warming in support of their theory. This breaks dwon in two ways. a) their methods of measurement have been called into question. Measurements made near cities, for example, are usually higher, as cities grow then the temperatures will increase. Therefore, many of their results taken near cities were merely confirmations of urban growth. (There are other problems with their measurements too.); b) Most temperature measurements , even those of proponents, show that in the very recent past, 15 to 20 years, temperature have gone down. This was while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. (This is one of the things they tried to lie about)
5) The Theory of MMGW via CO2 production, (which is the most important part of the theory for public policy) does not explain how the relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a significant affect. (This could be considered a part of objection #2) Even with the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere (which measurements they project by questionable, indirect means to times before measurements were taken), the concentrations are far below 1% of the total atmospheric gasses. This is in comparison to the atmosphere of the early days of planet earth, which other scientist have long told us was about 60% CO2. Connected to this, is the argument that it is the warmer earth that causes the CO2 increases, not the other way around. Dissenters have graphed the changes and they claim that the CO2 increases followed the warming, not the other way around. Again, many details of the theory could be more rationally discussed if they would tell us just what is in their computer model (and what is left out). As it is their model is a black box: we aren't told what goes on inside. This is because, no doubt we are mostly just not as smart as Al Gore and the rest of them. (Prince Charles of Great Britain is apparently another of the hyper intelligent warmies.)
6) An objection to the Cap-and-Trade scheme is that it would not bring about much reduction in the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere anyway. If CO2 really is causing global warming or if something else is causing warming (such as cyclical changes in the sun's output), there may be nothing we can do to reverse it. Therefore, instead of imposing trillions of dollars of burdens on the world economy, which would leave us with virtually no resources for other remedies, we should be spending our money and time on something that would help. The Maldive Islands is understandably concerned about possible rising sea levels, since most of the country is three feet above sea level. Besides lobbying for cap-and-trade (because A. Grore says to), they also created a new island and built a six foot wall around it. Building dikes would be a more efficient use of resources that capping and trading. (I must say that cap-and-trade should win an award as the most astoundingly stupid idea ever. It is obviously a thinly disguised method of obtaining the results that environmentalists have wanted all along, which is a word with much diminished industry. They do not say how we will support ourselves without fossil fuel, the most efficient form of energy discovered to date, with the possible exception of nuclear, which they don't want either.)
7) One of my favorite objections (as I sit here with 10 degree weather outside.) The warmies do not address the advantages to some, if not most areas of the world, that would result from warming. This could easily outweigh the unwanted consequences, and at any rate, should be calculated into the cost-benefit analysis.
8) contiued
1) The proponent of a policy has the burden of establishing a case for the adoption of their policy. This is particularly true of a major policy change like cap-and-trade, which would significantly increase the cost of our most important fuel sources. Instead of making the case, they ask that we accept on authority alone, the conclusions of scientists. They have never simply and clearly explained either their MMGW theory or their Cap-and-trade proposal, much less made their prime fascia case.
2) Unlike the claim made by proponents, there is not a consensus among scientist that MMGW is a concern. Unfortunately, the government bodies that wield the most political weight in matters of science seem to have been co-opted by the warmies. They will not let the dissenters be heard. They discredit them and the publications in which dissenting views have been published.
3) The internet, being thus far free of government control, does give dissenters a voice. An interesting website that I linked to in an earlier post (and which I will check on) offers several scientific arguments against MMGW. One argument states that whereas it it true that CO2 absorbs and reradiates heat radiation, thus returning to earth heat that would be lost, it absorbs only heat radiated in specific wavelengths. (What wave lengths and under what conditions co2 absorbs radiation and what it does with the heat thus absorbed would be part of the theory that the proponents should be more fully explaining, but which they do not.) The website in question calculates the heat lost due to this process and concludes that even if there was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation within the given wavelengths, it would not have a significant affect on climate. (Perhaps the proponents have ways of explaining their way around this but they will not say, except that their computer model says that the result will be warming, a LOT of warming, we better really be scared-- and that they say is their scientific opinion.)
4) Eventhough he theory of the proponents is never fully stated (even to a first approximation), they do (or at least did initially) offer empirical evidence of recent warming in support of their theory. This breaks dwon in two ways. a) their methods of measurement have been called into question. Measurements made near cities, for example, are usually higher, as cities grow then the temperatures will increase. Therefore, many of their results taken near cities were merely confirmations of urban growth. (There are other problems with their measurements too.); b) Most temperature measurements , even those of proponents, show that in the very recent past, 15 to 20 years, temperature have gone down. This was while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. (This is one of the things they tried to lie about)
5) The Theory of MMGW via CO2 production, (which is the most important part of the theory for public policy) does not explain how the relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a significant affect. (This could be considered a part of objection #2) Even with the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere (which measurements they project by questionable, indirect means to times before measurements were taken), the concentrations are far below 1% of the total atmospheric gasses. This is in comparison to the atmosphere of the early days of planet earth, which other scientist have long told us was about 60% CO2. Connected to this, is the argument that it is the warmer earth that causes the CO2 increases, not the other way around. Dissenters have graphed the changes and they claim that the CO2 increases followed the warming, not the other way around. Again, many details of the theory could be more rationally discussed if they would tell us just what is in their computer model (and what is left out). As it is their model is a black box: we aren't told what goes on inside. This is because, no doubt we are mostly just not as smart as Al Gore and the rest of them. (Prince Charles of Great Britain is apparently another of the hyper intelligent warmies.)
6) An objection to the Cap-and-Trade scheme is that it would not bring about much reduction in the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere anyway. If CO2 really is causing global warming or if something else is causing warming (such as cyclical changes in the sun's output), there may be nothing we can do to reverse it. Therefore, instead of imposing trillions of dollars of burdens on the world economy, which would leave us with virtually no resources for other remedies, we should be spending our money and time on something that would help. The Maldive Islands is understandably concerned about possible rising sea levels, since most of the country is three feet above sea level. Besides lobbying for cap-and-trade (because A. Grore says to), they also created a new island and built a six foot wall around it. Building dikes would be a more efficient use of resources that capping and trading. (I must say that cap-and-trade should win an award as the most astoundingly stupid idea ever. It is obviously a thinly disguised method of obtaining the results that environmentalists have wanted all along, which is a word with much diminished industry. They do not say how we will support ourselves without fossil fuel, the most efficient form of energy discovered to date, with the possible exception of nuclear, which they don't want either.)
7) One of my favorite objections (as I sit here with 10 degree weather outside.) The warmies do not address the advantages to some, if not most areas of the world, that would result from warming. This could easily outweigh the unwanted consequences, and at any rate, should be calculated into the cost-benefit analysis.
8) contiued
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Revolution's Progress
Many items in the news lately regarding issues important to Americans.
1) President Barack Obama: Naive-in-Chief, stunning clulessness, and insults to America-- London Times
Today another BHO speech to UN: Nuclear disarmament and lecturing. (I didn't actually hear the speech but I am sure it contained lecturing.) Some nuclear enforcement ideas are good if directed at the problem areas but goal of world without nuclear weapons is deceivingly idiotic, like gun control.
In the 1930's there was a multilateral international agreement to ban war. WWII followed soon after.
Gordon Brown, PM was good, Sarcosie, French President, was great. Great Britain says they will scrap one of their four nuclear armed subs. Who cares, but a bad symbolic statement.
BHO foreign policy abandons Poland, Checz Republic, Israel, UK, and Honduras
Supports Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, and Russia
2) Glen Beck v. Republican party. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, says Glenn. Yes, the R's we supported were a disappointment in the recent past. They not only reached across the isle, but they ran over and sat on the Demo's laps and gave em a big kiss on the cheek. But there are degrees of insanity. Creating a third party or similar movements have always been very disastrous in the past. The left has a circus of clowns. We need one too and there is room in the Republican tent for Glen.
3) Ongoing press difficulties. Freedom v. the G.C.P. (Government Controlled Press). Why are the primary news media having financial trouble? The market for drivel is saturated and only outlets for truth are in low supply.
4) Pending hazardous legislation: Health care (for yet another free market solution, see: http://mises.org/3699 Is Emergency Care a Failed Market: by Eric M. Staib; 9/24/09), Wall Street regulation/take over (back burner now but just wait; RINO please say no to this), Global Warming still the worst of the worst. The unwitting and otherwise compliance of the press and environmental groups is the only way this monstrous idea could survive. We really need some light on this to expose it for what it is. Speaking of exposing, what about ACORN and allied groups: an interlocking spider web of corruption, crime, and communism. As such, congress should cut back their government funding to only a few hundred million: honor among thieves.
1) President Barack Obama: Naive-in-Chief, stunning clulessness, and insults to America-- London Times
Today another BHO speech to UN: Nuclear disarmament and lecturing. (I didn't actually hear the speech but I am sure it contained lecturing.) Some nuclear enforcement ideas are good if directed at the problem areas but goal of world without nuclear weapons is deceivingly idiotic, like gun control.
In the 1930's there was a multilateral international agreement to ban war. WWII followed soon after.
Gordon Brown, PM was good, Sarcosie, French President, was great. Great Britain says they will scrap one of their four nuclear armed subs. Who cares, but a bad symbolic statement.
BHO foreign policy abandons Poland, Checz Republic, Israel, UK, and Honduras
Supports Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, and Russia
2) Glen Beck v. Republican party. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, says Glenn. Yes, the R's we supported were a disappointment in the recent past. They not only reached across the isle, but they ran over and sat on the Demo's laps and gave em a big kiss on the cheek. But there are degrees of insanity. Creating a third party or similar movements have always been very disastrous in the past. The left has a circus of clowns. We need one too and there is room in the Republican tent for Glen.
3) Ongoing press difficulties. Freedom v. the G.C.P. (Government Controlled Press). Why are the primary news media having financial trouble? The market for drivel is saturated and only outlets for truth are in low supply.
4) Pending hazardous legislation: Health care (for yet another free market solution, see: http://mises.org/3699 Is Emergency Care a Failed Market: by Eric M. Staib; 9/24/09), Wall Street regulation/take over (back burner now but just wait; RINO please say no to this), Global Warming still the worst of the worst. The unwitting and otherwise compliance of the press and environmental groups is the only way this monstrous idea could survive. We really need some light on this to expose it for what it is. Speaking of exposing, what about ACORN and allied groups: an interlocking spider web of corruption, crime, and communism. As such, congress should cut back their government funding to only a few hundred million: honor among thieves.
Monday, September 14, 2009
One Debacle at a Time Please
While we have two of the worse legislative proposal before us in health care and energy, that is cap-and-trade, the Obama regime is now again talking about a proposal to 'regulate' the financial industry. Are they trying to finesse one or the other of these horrors past us if they cannot get them all? Is it a distraction move? A few things that we have learned from the recent history of this administration should prepare us to meet the coming onslaught.
The Federal Administration and its allies in congress will not offer a definitive proposal for a while, if ever. (Just as they do not offer a definitive health care plan and as the Man Made Global Warming Theory is never spelled out in total.) That will allow them to disavow and deny any accusation that some particularly repugnant scheme is part of their proposal, just as they do with health care. As with Global Warming, it will be hard to attack their proposals on grounds of economic theory, since they really won't have a proposal. It will morph depending upon the audience they are trying to persuade.
However, just because they do not tell their plans does not mean that they do not have any. Thanks to talk radio, we have heard several speeches given by Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress over the last few years to their close constituent organizations. They say that they want single government payer health care. They do not want any part of our current system. They told their friendly audiences that they may have to accept some employer provided insurance for a while, but eventually Party organizers can deliver full-blown socialized medicine. It is the same way with financial 'regulation'. What he really wants is to take control of the financial system.
At first he will say that he proposes a 'consumer protection agency' to save us from the abuses of Wall Street. The actual bill that they eventually produce when the time is ripe, will have been long in the works. Every socialistic central planning and control mechanism that has been discredited over the last two hundred years will be represented. It will be written by the likes of Van Jones communist activists, Noam Chomsky communist academics, Paul Krugman communist economists (this latter one is in disguise), and all kinds of just plain communists that we have not heard of yet. There are plenty of communist 'scholars' waiting in the wings and biting at the bit to get control of as much as they can. Wall Street would certainly be a big coup.
On the other side are the conservatives: economist, wall street businessmen, politicians, historians, and legitimate scholars who can be ignored because they have been so discredited by the press. They tells us that it is government regulation that causes economic downturn. They ask how regulation could have made any difference in the mortgage meltdown, when industry was doing just as government wanted it to do. Would the regulator have said to congress, "no Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. Franks, Mr. Dodd, if you make a law like that it will lead to risky loans and excess speculation. No Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Bernanke, you can't do that or it will lead to malinvestment of our precious limited resources in a bubble that will ultimately burst and destroy capital." Any such regulator would soon be out of a job. Banks were led by congress to make loans that they thought better of and fined if they refused. They attempted to protect themselves with 'insurance' (derivatives) but you can't protect yourself when everyone, even the 'insurers' go broke. (As they always do when the bubble bursts.) When things went wrong the banks were blamed.
That and a lot more is inconvenient history that the current administration is allowed to ignore. At the time they dismissed their own responsibility by saying, "there's plenty of blame to go around." I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who said, "when a Democrat says there is plenty of blame to go around, you can bet that their share was about 95%."
Another example that is often heard is that the 'massive' banking deregulation of the Reagan and Bush administrations was obviously a mistake. When you ask just what deregulation they mean, one thing you often hear is the repeal of Glass Stiegal. This allowed financial firms to diversify: it allowed banks to underwrite securities as investment banks do and investment banks and brokers to accept deposits as regular banks do. However, in the mortgage meltdown, the banks got into trouble by acting as banks and the brokerages and investment firms by acting as such. The Glass Steigal Act was mostly irrelevant. The largest mortgage players, Fanny May and Freddie Mac behaved just as always, they were not affected by Glass Steigal. They were a creation of congress and did congress's bidding. They, along with the Fed, were the primary instigators of the meltdown. They were not regulated by government because, effectively, they were government. So who will regulate the regulators Mr. President? Another practice that they mention is short selling, which in fact is economically beneficial in that it warns investors of coming problems, which will help to remedy those problems in time. Other systematic problems in capital markets, too numerous and depressing to mention, all followed from the implementation of government plans.
The people who know the least about finance, (who manage the Post office, Social Security, Amtrack, Medicare Medicaid, government pension insurance, deposit insurance... all essentially bankrupt), now want to further regulate the financial industry. It is already regulated so much, there is not much more they can do except take it over. That is what they want to do, and may end up doing. They may not have their name on the deeds right away, but they will call the shots, which amounts to the same thing. On our side, we have an informed public, who will be hard to bamboozle, even though they will surely try. They will lie and most of the press will back them up. We have talk radio (one of their next targets) and we have Tea Parties and we had some great town meetings. We have the constitution still and we have the truth.
The Federal Administration and its allies in congress will not offer a definitive proposal for a while, if ever. (Just as they do not offer a definitive health care plan and as the Man Made Global Warming Theory is never spelled out in total.) That will allow them to disavow and deny any accusation that some particularly repugnant scheme is part of their proposal, just as they do with health care. As with Global Warming, it will be hard to attack their proposals on grounds of economic theory, since they really won't have a proposal. It will morph depending upon the audience they are trying to persuade.
However, just because they do not tell their plans does not mean that they do not have any. Thanks to talk radio, we have heard several speeches given by Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress over the last few years to their close constituent organizations. They say that they want single government payer health care. They do not want any part of our current system. They told their friendly audiences that they may have to accept some employer provided insurance for a while, but eventually Party organizers can deliver full-blown socialized medicine. It is the same way with financial 'regulation'. What he really wants is to take control of the financial system.
At first he will say that he proposes a 'consumer protection agency' to save us from the abuses of Wall Street. The actual bill that they eventually produce when the time is ripe, will have been long in the works. Every socialistic central planning and control mechanism that has been discredited over the last two hundred years will be represented. It will be written by the likes of Van Jones communist activists, Noam Chomsky communist academics, Paul Krugman communist economists (this latter one is in disguise), and all kinds of just plain communists that we have not heard of yet. There are plenty of communist 'scholars' waiting in the wings and biting at the bit to get control of as much as they can. Wall Street would certainly be a big coup.
On the other side are the conservatives: economist, wall street businessmen, politicians, historians, and legitimate scholars who can be ignored because they have been so discredited by the press. They tells us that it is government regulation that causes economic downturn. They ask how regulation could have made any difference in the mortgage meltdown, when industry was doing just as government wanted it to do. Would the regulator have said to congress, "no Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. Franks, Mr. Dodd, if you make a law like that it will lead to risky loans and excess speculation. No Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Bernanke, you can't do that or it will lead to malinvestment of our precious limited resources in a bubble that will ultimately burst and destroy capital." Any such regulator would soon be out of a job. Banks were led by congress to make loans that they thought better of and fined if they refused. They attempted to protect themselves with 'insurance' (derivatives) but you can't protect yourself when everyone, even the 'insurers' go broke. (As they always do when the bubble bursts.) When things went wrong the banks were blamed.
That and a lot more is inconvenient history that the current administration is allowed to ignore. At the time they dismissed their own responsibility by saying, "there's plenty of blame to go around." I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who said, "when a Democrat says there is plenty of blame to go around, you can bet that their share was about 95%."
Another example that is often heard is that the 'massive' banking deregulation of the Reagan and Bush administrations was obviously a mistake. When you ask just what deregulation they mean, one thing you often hear is the repeal of Glass Stiegal. This allowed financial firms to diversify: it allowed banks to underwrite securities as investment banks do and investment banks and brokers to accept deposits as regular banks do. However, in the mortgage meltdown, the banks got into trouble by acting as banks and the brokerages and investment firms by acting as such. The Glass Steigal Act was mostly irrelevant. The largest mortgage players, Fanny May and Freddie Mac behaved just as always, they were not affected by Glass Steigal. They were a creation of congress and did congress's bidding. They, along with the Fed, were the primary instigators of the meltdown. They were not regulated by government because, effectively, they were government. So who will regulate the regulators Mr. President? Another practice that they mention is short selling, which in fact is economically beneficial in that it warns investors of coming problems, which will help to remedy those problems in time. Other systematic problems in capital markets, too numerous and depressing to mention, all followed from the implementation of government plans.
The people who know the least about finance, (who manage the Post office, Social Security, Amtrack, Medicare Medicaid, government pension insurance, deposit insurance... all essentially bankrupt), now want to further regulate the financial industry. It is already regulated so much, there is not much more they can do except take it over. That is what they want to do, and may end up doing. They may not have their name on the deeds right away, but they will call the shots, which amounts to the same thing. On our side, we have an informed public, who will be hard to bamboozle, even though they will surely try. They will lie and most of the press will back them up. We have talk radio (one of their next targets) and we have Tea Parties and we had some great town meetings. We have the constitution still and we have the truth.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Cap-and-Trade Revealed
It is becoming clear why the Capitol Hill Mob did not want the global warming bill read or debated. It is a framework for complete control. The various pay-offs that they call credits or off-sets will buy whatever independence is left in the large corporations. As the climate "heats up" the legislation will be in place to tighten up the screws. Just as the propaganda machine was turned against the bond-holders of Chrysler and as GM had to do the bidding of the Party after it took their cash, the corporations will be under the power of the Central Committee once they start to play the cap-and-trade game.
To see how the bill can do this, read the comments on this web site: http://robbymoeller.blogspot.com/2009/07/50-ways-to-leave-your-freedoms.html , which links to the article, "50 ways to loose your freedom," which lists and explains 50 key provisions of the bill. These two sites do not even go into the fact that Global Warming is not a proven theory or even a plausible theory to begin with. They do explain why, even if there was man-made CO2 global warming on the way, this bill would not solve it. The bill is the power and money grab framework. Once adopted, the demagogues with the help of the press, a pliant congress, an intimidated court, community development organizations (i.e. ACORN), and now the corporate leaders could have their way with us. Why do you think this blog is named what it is?
To see how the bill can do this, read the comments on this web site: http://robbymoeller.blogspot.com/2009/07/50-ways-to-leave-your-freedoms.html , which links to the article, "50 ways to loose your freedom," which lists and explains 50 key provisions of the bill. These two sites do not even go into the fact that Global Warming is not a proven theory or even a plausible theory to begin with. They do explain why, even if there was man-made CO2 global warming on the way, this bill would not solve it. The bill is the power and money grab framework. Once adopted, the demagogues with the help of the press, a pliant congress, an intimidated court, community development organizations (i.e. ACORN), and now the corporate leaders could have their way with us. Why do you think this blog is named what it is?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)