Another Obama Speech, more Shenanigans

I have not been writing my comments on current events lately, partly because I am too busy, but also because there has not been much new. Current political events are merely elaborations on the themes of one or two years ago. For instance, see my post of August 11, 2009, Mixed-Up Economy: We Are All Blood Suckers Now. The war of ideas between the Keynesian outlook and the Free market/Small Government school rages even more today.

Another theme of this blog, which has never been as obvious as now, is the observation that generally liberals accuse conservatives of doing exactly what they do, or plan on doing soon. (Such as their accusations of "uncivil" remarks from conservatives.) Today, Obama waved a newspaper and stated that the Republicans oppose his so-called jobs bill because it is to their political advantage, without regard to the damage to the country of not going along with his latest scheme. In actuality, it would seem to me very politically courageous to oppose Obama's proposal to hand out more stimulus money. For conservatives, who believe that less government intervention in the economy will ultimately bring the best results, it could be political suicide to advocate abandonment of bailouts and other government largess.

On the other hand, it may not be difficult to make the point that the "jobs bill" would not save any jobs, and is intended primarily to save Obama's job. He asks that our congressional representatives pass the bill right away, presumably before they have time to read it, just as they passed the other masterpieces of the Harry Reid bill writing factory. Those bills are never what we are told they are. We have to pass the bill "to see what is in it," as Nancy Pelosi tells us. (For instance, we just learned that if congress does not adopt the suggestions of the super-committee of bipartisan spending cutters, we will automatically get cuts to the military and cuts to what medical providers are paid by medicare. It was advertised that there would be cuts to medicare but it was not explained how the cuts would come about. Doctor fees are already cut to the bone.) No telling what will be lurking in the hundreds of pages of the latest Obamination.

What does seem obvious is that the new bill is the same as the old bill. It is a way of looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to his constituents, i.e. to serve Obama's political ends. The primary constituents to be rewarded are, as usual, the unions, especially government unions. There was little or no economic stimulant effect the first time. The Austrian school of free market economics, as well as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, would explain that only the free market can allocate recourse's to fill our most urgent needs. Government intervention only makes things worse with unintended consequences. Bailing out state government workers, for instance, only prolongs the problem of wages and benefits being too high. A 5% cut in government salaries would be a better way to avoid government layoffs. Longterm changes in government pension systems also are needed as soon as possible.

Glenn Beck had a guess the speech segment this morning. He played cuts from Obama's speech advancing the 2009 stimulus bill and his speech the other day pushing the "jobs bill'" You had to guess which speech was which. The only difference that I heard was the new strident, almost threatening tones of the president. He seemed to be ordering congress to pass this latest bill. I guess he was desperate, and ought to be.

Coast to Coast Does not Quite Get It

I usually spend the weekend working outside, visiting friends, or running around dong the things that I do not have time for all week. By 9:00 or so I usually am home trying to get caught up on indoor chores. Inevitably, I turn the radio on. I do not watch television because it requires your complete attention. You can't do anything else. Usually I listen to to Coast to Coast AM with George Noori, who took over for Art Bell. As much as I disagree with the politics and economics of most guests, another guest always comes along to balance it out.

What they do not have, which is a shortcoming common to most news and commentary forums, is a true free market, libertarian, Austrian economic outlook. They do take cognizance of their existence but only long enough to mischaracterize and thereby dismiss their ideas. For instance tonight, Mr. Noori and the guest, author of "The Looting of America," talk about Ayan Rand. They decide that she and her like believe in "enlightened self interest." They define this as the belief that by seeking what is best for ourselves, we will serve society as a whole. Unfortunately, they say, this has not worked. They of course are ignoring for the most part the place for charity but this is only the trivial case. The more important issue they do not understand is the importance of distortions by government involvement.

This is exactly the error of progressives. Progressives create a vast regulatory structure in order to steer business in such a way that they will have an incentive to help society in general, as a by-product or directly by their profit seeking activity. This is doomed to failure. Finance, the most regulated business, follows the rules that government regulators set up. Within the framework, they find a way to make more money that the progressive like so the progressives say they are gaming the system. This is also a trivial aspects of what happens. More at the core is the implied government guarantee when they business follow the rules, against their better judgment. For example, when banks made government encouraged, sponsored, or even mandated risky loans, they were expecting some type of government bailout and playbacks. Financial engineers figured out how to make money on risky loans that government had encouraged them to do.

When things go wrong, as the schemes of the progressives eventually do, business is blamed and more regulations are enacted. There is always a new recipe to fix things. Very often, as now, capitalism itself is blamed. Mr. Noori favors a "moral capitalism." He has good instincts but is no match against the progressive plans. Progressives will never acknowledge that it is the regulation itself that leads to the problem. Business can never make a big mess on it own. The cooperation of or forcible intervention by government is needed to really screw things up.

Unfortunately, the guest on Coast to Coast tonight is essentially a progressive soldier. He is attacking banks and Wall Street, not to have a discussion on developing a theory of government and finance interface. His mission is to help get a regulatory bill past by this congress. In this he joins virtually all of the press. With BHO and his operatives pulling the strings, any bill passed now will be a virtual take over of the financial functions by the government.

Rerun: Socalized Medicine

"If all I am given for an option is socialism [or the stutus quo], which is a false dichotomy, I would still not choice socialism, which the current proposal is (or a short step from it.) If some people have been forced into bankruptcy by medical bills or have been treated unfairly by their insurance company, that is still not as bad as socialism. Socialism is always a bad choice. Find a different solution or leave it as it is. What we have had of freedom, should convince everyone that freedom is the principle to strive for in any solution.

I try to point and link to those who, by careful analysis, explain that Socialism cannot succeed. Under socialism, the administrators do not have the data to make efficient allocation of our scarce resources. Only the price system of the free market can do that. Furthermore, the current medical proposal is proof that partial socialism will inevitably lead to complete socialism. Interference with the system is what has lead to problems that they are now offering to solve by more interference. This process will continue after our current interference until we have complete socialism in medicine then everything else. Under socialism, everyone is made poorer. All aspects of the economy are burdened, eventually to the breaking point.

The bitter irony is that the liberals claim to help people, while it is the conservatives who actually know how to do it. This is a paradox similar to the truth that sometimes big wars can only be prevented by small wars."

/This quotation appealed to me. I found it in of one of my posts from last year/

While we're at it, here's a rerun of another quotation:

"We have tried so many things; when shall we try the simplest of all: freedom." (Frederic Bastiat)

One of the economists whose theories led to the Austrian School of Economics (See von Mises Institute for the definition of this), came to the conclusion that the then current bad economic idea (socialism) had so much support that it must run its course. Then from the ashes of the destruction that would result, more sensible ideas would gain acceptance. Unfortunately, it seems he was predicting World War I and II. There must be a better way to a solution.