Everybody is an Economic Expert

On a morning radio the announcer exclaimed that it seems like everyone is an economic expert these days. I guess as compared to how our finance and banking system has been run and our governments current answer to economic distress most people are economic experts.

It's very scary to hear President Obama exclaiming that "trickle down economics" and tax cuts are "the failed economic policies that got us here." I actually don't think that Obama is that stupid but like any other politician is simply pushing some partisan rhetoric to help him implement his agenda and strengthen his party's influence. It is unfortunate because as Obama and his PR machine are trying to lead us away from the hard won personal liberty that this country is about with misleading statements about what caused the economic crisis he is also not bringing about any meaningful change in this country.

Let's be clear about what caused the economic meltdown: financial institutions sold risky debt as though it wasn't risky. What some bankers and mortgage brokers and other financial firms committed was flat out fraud. We don't need new regulations or bank bailouts or other nonsense. We need those organizations that mis-represented risky loans as not being risky to be sued for the damage they caused and their executives to be imprisoned for fraud and their ill begotten assets seized. That is the government's responsibility in this situation. If a bank was bamboozled into making bad loans based on fraud then they should sue whoever ripped them off and if they can't and go broke as a result then tough.

The new administration could bring about real change by for once not bowing to the political clout of Wall Street and Bankers and just start investigating for fraud and legal violations in this sub-prime mortgage meltdown. We don't need new laws - just enforce the ones already in existence.

Tax cuts and de-regulation are so far the only proven policy to ever bring about rapid economic recovery. Socialism has never resulted in anything but pushing a society to a base mediocrity at best and in the extreme impoverishes all citizens except politicians and the politically connected. Socialist countries like France hope for 7.6% unemployement in GOOD times.

Economics and banking are not complicated subjects. Economics is about people supplying each others needs. Banking is the service of using the excess produced by a society to fund new enterprises and raise the standard of living. The system can expand continuously with an ever improving standard of living for all participants. There doesn't have to be booms and busts and ups and downs. Governments role is to ensure that the participants act honestly and do not misrepresent their products or services. This should extend to honesty in the press and laws against the press being used to spin situations which is simply another form of fraud.

Generally when governments get into the business of "managing" the economic system they simply wind up reducing the economy's effectiveness to raise the standard of living and maintain a continuous expansion. That's why socialism and it's extreme communism when implemented on a large scale leads always to lower standards of living for everyone. This is because the government has to try and guess the needs and desires of its constituents which it cannot do effectively. That's why the government trying to save an economy with bailouts or government spending is a very inefficient way to save an economy.

So what is this "economic expert's" solution: I offer a 3 pronged attack -
1. Start vigorously enforcing current laws and removing fraud from the system. Loudly start arresting the bankers, corrupt regulators, politicians who committed the fraud that lead up to this mess.
2. Agressive corporate and personal income tax cuts that will immediately energize the economy and make the U.S. the best place to make investments.
3. Instead of hundreds of billions in bailouts use that money to put out some positive press about the economy. Press manipulation is a fact in this country (if you don't believe this then WAKE UP). So be that as it may lets use it to bring about a more positive economic attitude because you can pump all the money you want to into the economy if people don't feel upbeat and confident that will kill any economy even in the best of times.

I'm no community organizer but I think that will work. Unfortunately it also means less opportunity for political power - after all when you are a politician doling out billions of dollars it is pretty easy to get "favors". That doesn't happen with tax cuts.

Why I didn't vote for Obama but I'm glad he won...

When Barak Obama and John McCain both supported the $700 billion bank bailout/junk stock purchasing waste-of-tax-payer money program they both lost my support.  But that's for another post...

I think Barak is a very intelligent and charismatic person.  He ran the better campaign which says something - but not that much given how badly McCain ran his.  In the end I am certain he was the better candidate but it's scary that he won on what was an unabashed socialist platform.

Yes, yes - I know...how dare I use the "s" word.  One of the funniest things I saw during the campaign was a fact check segment on CNN where they were analyzing this claim of whether or not Barak Obama's policy of increasing progressive taxation both for individuals and corporations is socialistic.  In the end the conclusion by the "expert" was that the claim was false on the condition that we already have progressive taxation so unless you thought the current tax system was socialistic then Barak Obama's tax policy is not socialistic.

Hmmm...that doesn't make sense.  The correct analysis is actually that progressive taxation IS socialistic and making taxation MORE progressive is thereby more socialistic.  Karl Marx's defining slogan was From Each According to his Ability, To Each According to his Needs.  Progressive taxation is about greater taxes for people who are able to earn more because "they can afford it" and give that wealth to people who earn very little via welfare and other subsidies because they are in need.  Sorry but to quote Obama - "You can put lipstick on a pig..."  Actually that saying is even more appropriate given the Animal Farm referrence.

Anyway I couldn't vote for him since I disagree with the policies he espoused while campaigning and I felt that casting a vote for him would show support for his campaign platform.  I wanted him to win but not by a large margin so that he would see that we Americans do not support socialism.  In the end he won by only 4% and the "record voter turnout" turned out to not be true.  It seems that he may have won largely because Republicans are disgusted with their own party, and rightly so, and didn't vote.

I was also a bit disparaged because so many people did vote for him despite his platform but as it turns out the more I listen to people who voted for Obama it seems they just voted for him because they liked him better and didn't really understand his platform at all.

In the end I don't believe that his win represents that we as Americans are turning away from personal responsibility and small government toward a culture of dependence and big government.  He did not get a mandate and most people who voted for him didn't do so because of his platform.  I do think Barak is very intelligent and has enough personal integrity to see that socialism is not the solution to our ills and that the campaign platform will fade into memory...

Bank Bailout

Does anyone else out there feel like they are being taken for a ride on this bank bailout?

Discount domain name registration and web hosting www.netgonian.com.

Philadelphia Web Development, Philadelphia Database Development,  Philadelphia Systems Design