I wrote in a previous post, and still believe, that Barack Obama is a good person and will be a major improvement over the disaster that was George W. Bush. His election is also great for race relations and surely means even more to many African Americans than I, as a white man born decades after Jim Crow ended, can fully understand. I still disagree with our President Elect on a lot of issues, especially his Keynesian stimulus garbage, but his tax and spend is better than Bush’s borrow and spend. What concerns me is this cult of personality that has sprouted up around Obama.
It’s almost like Barack Obama has been knighted as the Messiah of America. Conservative talk radio is often hyperbolic, but I think they got the mainstream media’s (other than the neoconservative Fox News) kids glove approach to Obama right. However, what’s more disconcerting than this media fawning is the millions of people who seem to just seem to fall heads over heels for him.
I’ve had a couple of friends on facebook constantly post pro Obama related material in their profile and there are currently 1,156,677 confirmed guests to Obama’s inauguration on facebook despite the fact that you can’t attend his inauguration via facebook. For the real thing over two million people are expected to attend the actual inauguration. I unfortunately missed the parties after he was elected, but I heard they were out of control.
Now, this isn’t necessarily bad, I mean it’s good that people are getting involved in politics. But there seems to be a feeling that his election will save us all from financial ruin, terrorism, war, greedy corporations, racism, sexism, crime, foreclosure, layoffs, bird flu and athletes foot. I mean look at all these Hollywood stars falling all over themselves for Obama in music videos like this one, this one, this one, and of course Obama girl.
What’s stranger and more disheartening are the youth choirs singing about how great Obama is. I don’t mean to compare Obama to Hitler, but I’m sorry the hero worship is just too reminiscent. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
It’s not a surprise that some conservative writers have picked up on this but even liberal economist Paul Krugman picked up on it during the primaries. Unbridled executive power is extraordinarily dangerous as we’ve seen in the fascist and communist states of the 20th century and we need to be very careful about how much power we allow our presidents to have. Bush, like many before him, increased executive power significantly which liberals have rightfully criticized. Now, however they’re jumping all over themselves for a president who will almost certainly expand the federal government.
We have to pull ourselves back from in this cult of the presidency in general and the cult of Obama in particular. The intent of the founders and the explicit language in our Constitution was meant to limit the power of the president. Hell, the original Articles of Confederation didn’t even have a president! Now there were problems then (think slavery), but a powerful executive is simply the antithesis of liberty and while it’s great Bush is gone, it’s time for Obama fanatics (and Obama himself) to relax.
Or we can just laugh at them.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2009
Monday, December 1, 2008
Some Change Barack
Not that I expected that much from him, but Barack Obama's cabinet selections have been a disappointment to say the least. Today he officially nominated Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. A bit of a U turn from all those horribly mean things Clinton and Obama said about each other during their bitter primary campaign. I am not exactly what you would call a fan of Hillary Clinton. I've always found her, like her husband, to be the ambitious, cuthroat, lying politican type. Although she did dodge all those make believe bullets in Serbia back in the early 90's, so that's a plus.
My bigger problem is how blatantly status quo Obama's selections have been with Hillary Clinton simply being the biggest name on the list. He also picked many others who were long time Clinton people including John Podesta as Transition Chief and Rep. Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff among others. Some have described this as a "a team of rivals" in reference to Abraham Lincoln, who basically put everyone he beat in the election into cabinet posts. That's one way of looking at it, but I don't see it that way. I think these selections, all basically Clinton people (with the notable exception of Robert Gates, who will probably remain at Secretary of Defense, again big change) just creates the second presidency of Bill Clinton.
If that was what this whole election was about, fine, he should have said so. Hillary Clinton at least for once took a leave from her normal dishonesty and basically admitted that was her intention. But this coming from the guy who talked so much about "hope" and "change" and a "new politics" just seems awful disingenuous. I guess that's nothing new from a politician. Change all the way back to 1999!
That being said, it's not all bad. Bill Clinton certainly had many faults, like launching some 25 odd, mostly inept military interventions, but those were at least short, small wars with few casualties unlike the debacles George W Bush got us into in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, while I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, he's leaps and bounds ahead of Bush. Ironically, our economy actually got freer under Clinton and then less free under Bush, which will probably surprise the many mindless talking head drones who assume rhetoric equals action. According to the Fraser Institute's yearly report on economic freedom, the US was a 7.8 (out of 10) in 1990, two years before Clinton took office. When he left, the US stood at 8.6, and now, after 8 years of Bush it has fallen to an 8.0.
I guess all this elucidates the simple point that politicians are, with very few exceptions, dirty liars. The supposedly egalitarian democrats increased economic freedom, the supposedly free market republicans decreased economic freedom and Barack Obama isn't about change or a new sort of politics. He's simply trying to have the third and then fourth terms of Bill Clinton's presidency. But hey let’s look on the bright side, given our recent history, that's certainly not the worst thing that could happen.
My bigger problem is how blatantly status quo Obama's selections have been with Hillary Clinton simply being the biggest name on the list. He also picked many others who were long time Clinton people including John Podesta as Transition Chief and Rep. Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff among others. Some have described this as a "a team of rivals" in reference to Abraham Lincoln, who basically put everyone he beat in the election into cabinet posts. That's one way of looking at it, but I don't see it that way. I think these selections, all basically Clinton people (with the notable exception of Robert Gates, who will probably remain at Secretary of Defense, again big change) just creates the second presidency of Bill Clinton.
If that was what this whole election was about, fine, he should have said so. Hillary Clinton at least for once took a leave from her normal dishonesty and basically admitted that was her intention. But this coming from the guy who talked so much about "hope" and "change" and a "new politics" just seems awful disingenuous. I guess that's nothing new from a politician. Change all the way back to 1999!
That being said, it's not all bad. Bill Clinton certainly had many faults, like launching some 25 odd, mostly inept military interventions, but those were at least short, small wars with few casualties unlike the debacles George W Bush got us into in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, while I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, he's leaps and bounds ahead of Bush. Ironically, our economy actually got freer under Clinton and then less free under Bush, which will probably surprise the many mindless talking head drones who assume rhetoric equals action. According to the Fraser Institute's yearly report on economic freedom, the US was a 7.8 (out of 10) in 1990, two years before Clinton took office. When he left, the US stood at 8.6, and now, after 8 years of Bush it has fallen to an 8.0.
I guess all this elucidates the simple point that politicians are, with very few exceptions, dirty liars. The supposedly egalitarian democrats increased economic freedom, the supposedly free market republicans decreased economic freedom and Barack Obama isn't about change or a new sort of politics. He's simply trying to have the third and then fourth terms of Bill Clinton's presidency. But hey let’s look on the bright side, given our recent history, that's certainly not the worst thing that could happen.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My Thoughts on Prop 8
In the euphoria liberals having been feeling over the past week after Obama won the election and Democrats picked up several more seats in the House and Senate, there has been one sour note for them. That is the passing of proposition 8 in California. Prop 8 basically bans same-sex marriage and it does so in the biggest and one of the most liberal states in the union.
Now I don't live in California and I am neither gay nor have any interest in getting married anytime soon. I do however agree with my liberal friends that Prop 8 is a ridiculous and unfair law. Of equal importance though, I feel I should weigh in on this issue because it elucidates a paradox within the standard liberal orthodoxy: namely that democracy is an infallible good.
Democracy is good you say, well I agree, but only to a limited extent. There are certain rights we shouldn't be able to vote away from each other. We should remember that Hitler came to power in a democracy (Weimar Republic), the Jim Crow laws were kept in place for 100 years with out being overturned by vote, George Bush was reelected in 2004 and Saddam Hussein got 100% of the popular vote (OK that one's not really fair). Detractors we'll surely say that democracy isn't perfect but it is still good, as Winston Churchill said "democracy is the absolute worst type of government, aside by every other one."
So I guess we just have to live with democracy's imperfections, right? Well not really, because the United States is not a democracy! Yes you read that right and I am not inferring it's a fascist dictatorship (my apologies to any Noam Chomsky fans out there). The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional part obviously implies the Constitution, or namely a strict set of rules our government must be held to. Separation of powers is explicit in that to prevent a consolidation of the monopoly (government), which interprets said document. The Republic part insinuates federalism, or state rights. Now obviously this isn't perfect either as Jim Crow was justified with state rights. But we need not go to any extreme; the federal government can (under the 14th Ammendment) and should prevent the states from blatantly taking people's rights away.
So we need all four (democracy, federalism, a constitution and separation of powers) to have a just government. Unbridled democracy alone is simply mob rule, the power of the 51% to take away the rights of the 49%. It’s what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner" while liberty was "a well armed lamb protesting the vote." James Madison was more explicit:
The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
Neo-socialists like Howard Zinn claim Madison was trying to make sure the rich minority could exploit the poor masses, but that had nothing to do with it. Although slavery was allowed (against the wishes of most founding fathers), the idea was that no party, political orthodoxy, religion or anything else could come to dominate the country and that people who held opposing views would be free from the tyranny of the majority. This is why our 1st amendment isn't up for vote. We can't vote away free speech (although politicians through out our history have tried to do it in an underhanded way).
So in essence what Prop 8 did was allowed the majority of Californians to vote away the rights of the minority. This is what the Federal Constitution and every State Constitution is meant to prevent. What angers me here is not so much that Prop 8 passed, but that we would even be allowed to vote on such a thing. Hell, marriage wasn't even a state regulated institution until about 100 years ago when the government got into it (and makes us pay them to get married).
Well, there's the legal, constitutional argument, how about the moral argument. Well first off, it shouldn't matter. Why does someone else getting married, probably a stranger, matter to you at all? Is it to maintain the institutions traditions? Well, just 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states, so that can't be it. OK, so the Bible says "13If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Well be careful, the Bible also says "18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Are you really going to feel good about enforcing that one? All Christians need to either accept that the Old Testament is a bit anachronistic and there's a lot of allegory in there or you are not even close to living a Christian life and should certainly not be casting the first stone! Keith Olbermann, who usually bugs me like he’s the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, actually puts it very well.
Oh wait, my bad, I found this great top 10 list that explains why gay marriage should be outlawed. I'll try not to write so much next time before changing my mind at the last second:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Again, my bad...
Now I don't live in California and I am neither gay nor have any interest in getting married anytime soon. I do however agree with my liberal friends that Prop 8 is a ridiculous and unfair law. Of equal importance though, I feel I should weigh in on this issue because it elucidates a paradox within the standard liberal orthodoxy: namely that democracy is an infallible good.
Democracy is good you say, well I agree, but only to a limited extent. There are certain rights we shouldn't be able to vote away from each other. We should remember that Hitler came to power in a democracy (Weimar Republic), the Jim Crow laws were kept in place for 100 years with out being overturned by vote, George Bush was reelected in 2004 and Saddam Hussein got 100% of the popular vote (OK that one's not really fair). Detractors we'll surely say that democracy isn't perfect but it is still good, as Winston Churchill said "democracy is the absolute worst type of government, aside by every other one."
So I guess we just have to live with democracy's imperfections, right? Well not really, because the United States is not a democracy! Yes you read that right and I am not inferring it's a fascist dictatorship (my apologies to any Noam Chomsky fans out there). The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional part obviously implies the Constitution, or namely a strict set of rules our government must be held to. Separation of powers is explicit in that to prevent a consolidation of the monopoly (government), which interprets said document. The Republic part insinuates federalism, or state rights. Now obviously this isn't perfect either as Jim Crow was justified with state rights. But we need not go to any extreme; the federal government can (under the 14th Ammendment) and should prevent the states from blatantly taking people's rights away.
So we need all four (democracy, federalism, a constitution and separation of powers) to have a just government. Unbridled democracy alone is simply mob rule, the power of the 51% to take away the rights of the 49%. It’s what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner" while liberty was "a well armed lamb protesting the vote." James Madison was more explicit:
The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
Neo-socialists like Howard Zinn claim Madison was trying to make sure the rich minority could exploit the poor masses, but that had nothing to do with it. Although slavery was allowed (against the wishes of most founding fathers), the idea was that no party, political orthodoxy, religion or anything else could come to dominate the country and that people who held opposing views would be free from the tyranny of the majority. This is why our 1st amendment isn't up for vote. We can't vote away free speech (although politicians through out our history have tried to do it in an underhanded way).
So in essence what Prop 8 did was allowed the majority of Californians to vote away the rights of the minority. This is what the Federal Constitution and every State Constitution is meant to prevent. What angers me here is not so much that Prop 8 passed, but that we would even be allowed to vote on such a thing. Hell, marriage wasn't even a state regulated institution until about 100 years ago when the government got into it (and makes us pay them to get married).
Well, there's the legal, constitutional argument, how about the moral argument. Well first off, it shouldn't matter. Why does someone else getting married, probably a stranger, matter to you at all? Is it to maintain the institutions traditions? Well, just 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states, so that can't be it. OK, so the Bible says "13If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Well be careful, the Bible also says "18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Are you really going to feel good about enforcing that one? All Christians need to either accept that the Old Testament is a bit anachronistic and there's a lot of allegory in there or you are not even close to living a Christian life and should certainly not be casting the first stone! Keith Olbermann, who usually bugs me like he’s the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, actually puts it very well.
Oh wait, my bad, I found this great top 10 list that explains why gay marriage should be outlawed. I'll try not to write so much next time before changing my mind at the last second:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Again, my bad...
Congrats Obama
OK, so I guess I'm about a week late, but then again, no one really reads my blog anyways so I have a pretty flexible schedule. Regardless, congratulations President Elect Barack Obama. I didn't vote for you, I think many of your policies are wrong, but I think you're a good, honorable person and will be a major improvement over our current president (of course, my last bowel movement would have probably been an improvement).
Given that the election really came down to Obama and McCain, I'm glad Obama won. His vicotry is basically a rejection of the the Iraq War. And while I doubt Obama will start withdrawing our troops from all over the world, I do think he'll at least slowly bring that awful war to a close.
As I stated earlier, his economic policies do make me a bit nervous. Then again, McCain wasn't an improvement. I could barely stand the irony of McCain calling Obama the "redistributionist and chief" a week or so after he voted to pass the $700 billion dollar bailout (the biggest wealth redistribution in American history). Obama is not a socialist by any means, still a new New Deal is definitely not what we need right now. Hopefully he'll keep it within reason. Although with all the problems this country is facing and pressure he's facing, I kinda doubt it. Oh well. Good luck President Obama.
Given that the election really came down to Obama and McCain, I'm glad Obama won. His vicotry is basically a rejection of the the Iraq War. And while I doubt Obama will start withdrawing our troops from all over the world, I do think he'll at least slowly bring that awful war to a close.
As I stated earlier, his economic policies do make me a bit nervous. Then again, McCain wasn't an improvement. I could barely stand the irony of McCain calling Obama the "redistributionist and chief" a week or so after he voted to pass the $700 billion dollar bailout (the biggest wealth redistribution in American history). Obama is not a socialist by any means, still a new New Deal is definitely not what we need right now. Hopefully he'll keep it within reason. Although with all the problems this country is facing and pressure he's facing, I kinda doubt it. Oh well. Good luck President Obama.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Getting My Vote On
Who to vote for, who to vote for? That was my dilemma last weekend as I went through and filled out my mail-in ballot. It was probably the most mind-numbingly boring experience of my entire life... so I'd like to share it with you. Don't worry, I'll skip the boring ballot measures and annexation requests and State Treasurer runoff and jump right to the real meat of the matter: Who should I vote for President.
I'll start with the Republicans. Wow, have they proven they don't deserve my vote over the past eight years. I'll say that no matter what happens, this election can't be all bad given that George Bush will be out of office in two months. And while I like John McCain as a person and definitely respect him for what he had to go through in Vietnam, I simply can't vote for him. I won't even consider it. The reason being is his steadfast support for the war in Iraq and his almost romantic disposition toward US militarism. Every prediction made by the war's supporters - that it would be a cake walk, that there wouldn't be an insurgency, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that oil would pay for the war, that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence - has been proven wrong. The surge seems to have helped stabilize the situation, but I think it has more to do with the Iraqi people segregating themselves along sectarian lines. Basically McCain was wrong about Iraq in the beginning and he is still unwilling to budge. To me, this is unacceptable.
Unfortunately it's not just Iraq with him. McCain is a super hawk, through and through. He even said in one of the Republican debates that "we lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the will to finish the job." Really John, really? Were 13 years not enough (1960-1973)? Were 55,000 dead Americans not enough? I'm just afraid that he is such a hawk that not only will we stay in Iraq for a 100 years but that Iran may be next. To fill out his resume he has admitted he's doesn't know much about the economy and Sarah Palin is inexperienced and looks kind of lost on the campaign trail. At least she's helped Saturday Night Live produce a much needed revival.
So let's turn to the Democrats, Barack Obama is tempting. All that talk of change, well it makes me think of this. He did oppose the Iraq War and comes of as uniting figure. However, if you read his anti-war speech closely, it's really not very anti-war, it's just anti-this-war. While obviously very few people would oppose all wars regardless of circumstance, Obama felt it necessary to reiterate that four times in a 921 word speech. And since when does one short speech make you passionately anti-war prior to the conflict. So Barack may just bring us back to the ineffective, scattered, naive interventions a la Bill Clinton. Oh and he hasn't pushed any legislation to end the war of even voted against funding it. Some change there buddy.
What worries me more about Obama is his economic ideas. As I mentioned in the previous post, the government is the root of our financial crisis, but the junior senator from Illinois simply blames Wall Street and only Wall Street. Overall he wants to raise taxes during a recession. Come on Barack, economics 101! Sometimes his economic policies are just plain ridiculous, such as when he was asked why he wants to raise the capital gains tax even though the last two times that was done it brought in less revenue. His answer: it's more fair. Really Barack, really? He also wants to increase spending, which will mean more borrowing, even with the tax increases he has proposed. Thereby increasing our ever growing and unsustainable national debt, which I will have to write a blog about sometime later.
So I'm saying no to the two major candidates. Aren't I throwing my vote away then? Well, I live in Oregon, which is easily in Obama's camp. So no matter who I vote for I'm throwing my vote away. I'm not against democracy by any means (although it needs to be restrained by a strong constitution, separation of powers and federalism). And I do know that if many people vote for a third party candidate en masse it could swing the election, such as with Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. However I also know that it is simply a fact that no election has ever been decided by one vote and Oregon will go blue no matter how I fill out my ballot. So screw the major parties and call it a protest vote if you want, but I'm voting for who I want regardless of their odds.
So then who? Well I liked Ron Paul a lot during the primaries, so maybe I could write him in. He's not on the ballot, but did gain quite a following during the primaries. Paul's libertarian conservatism may be a bit simplistic, but he's one of the few politicians that Washington hasn't corrupted. I supported him until those ugly, racist newsletters saw the light of day. Paul says he didn't write them and I believe him, but it's hard to believe he had no idea what was going on. I mean the newsletter was called the Ron Paul Newsletter for crying out loud. So I guess I still respect him (and by the way his book, The Revolution: a Manifesto, is quite good), but I'm not going to write him in.
So, given my moderate libertarian beliefs I guess I'll just go with Bob Barr and the libertarian ticket. I have some beefs with the former congressman too - such as his support of the Defense of Marriage Act, a very unlibertarian piece of legislation if there ever was one - but overall he's a more restrained version of Ron Paul with out the racist charade circling him. Hey, he's as good as anyone to throw my vote away on.
I'll start with the Republicans. Wow, have they proven they don't deserve my vote over the past eight years. I'll say that no matter what happens, this election can't be all bad given that George Bush will be out of office in two months. And while I like John McCain as a person and definitely respect him for what he had to go through in Vietnam, I simply can't vote for him. I won't even consider it. The reason being is his steadfast support for the war in Iraq and his almost romantic disposition toward US militarism. Every prediction made by the war's supporters - that it would be a cake walk, that there wouldn't be an insurgency, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that oil would pay for the war, that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence - has been proven wrong. The surge seems to have helped stabilize the situation, but I think it has more to do with the Iraqi people segregating themselves along sectarian lines. Basically McCain was wrong about Iraq in the beginning and he is still unwilling to budge. To me, this is unacceptable.
Unfortunately it's not just Iraq with him. McCain is a super hawk, through and through. He even said in one of the Republican debates that "we lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the will to finish the job." Really John, really? Were 13 years not enough (1960-1973)? Were 55,000 dead Americans not enough? I'm just afraid that he is such a hawk that not only will we stay in Iraq for a 100 years but that Iran may be next. To fill out his resume he has admitted he's doesn't know much about the economy and Sarah Palin is inexperienced and looks kind of lost on the campaign trail. At least she's helped Saturday Night Live produce a much needed revival.
So let's turn to the Democrats, Barack Obama is tempting. All that talk of change, well it makes me think of this. He did oppose the Iraq War and comes of as uniting figure. However, if you read his anti-war speech closely, it's really not very anti-war, it's just anti-this-war. While obviously very few people would oppose all wars regardless of circumstance, Obama felt it necessary to reiterate that four times in a 921 word speech. And since when does one short speech make you passionately anti-war prior to the conflict. So Barack may just bring us back to the ineffective, scattered, naive interventions a la Bill Clinton. Oh and he hasn't pushed any legislation to end the war of even voted against funding it. Some change there buddy.
What worries me more about Obama is his economic ideas. As I mentioned in the previous post, the government is the root of our financial crisis, but the junior senator from Illinois simply blames Wall Street and only Wall Street. Overall he wants to raise taxes during a recession. Come on Barack, economics 101! Sometimes his economic policies are just plain ridiculous, such as when he was asked why he wants to raise the capital gains tax even though the last two times that was done it brought in less revenue. His answer: it's more fair. Really Barack, really? He also wants to increase spending, which will mean more borrowing, even with the tax increases he has proposed. Thereby increasing our ever growing and unsustainable national debt, which I will have to write a blog about sometime later.
So I'm saying no to the two major candidates. Aren't I throwing my vote away then? Well, I live in Oregon, which is easily in Obama's camp. So no matter who I vote for I'm throwing my vote away. I'm not against democracy by any means (although it needs to be restrained by a strong constitution, separation of powers and federalism). And I do know that if many people vote for a third party candidate en masse it could swing the election, such as with Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. However I also know that it is simply a fact that no election has ever been decided by one vote and Oregon will go blue no matter how I fill out my ballot. So screw the major parties and call it a protest vote if you want, but I'm voting for who I want regardless of their odds.
So then who? Well I liked Ron Paul a lot during the primaries, so maybe I could write him in. He's not on the ballot, but did gain quite a following during the primaries. Paul's libertarian conservatism may be a bit simplistic, but he's one of the few politicians that Washington hasn't corrupted. I supported him until those ugly, racist newsletters saw the light of day. Paul says he didn't write them and I believe him, but it's hard to believe he had no idea what was going on. I mean the newsletter was called the Ron Paul Newsletter for crying out loud. So I guess I still respect him (and by the way his book, The Revolution: a Manifesto, is quite good), but I'm not going to write him in.
So, given my moderate libertarian beliefs I guess I'll just go with Bob Barr and the libertarian ticket. I have some beefs with the former congressman too - such as his support of the Defense of Marriage Act, a very unlibertarian piece of legislation if there ever was one - but overall he's a more restrained version of Ron Paul with out the racist charade circling him. Hey, he's as good as anyone to throw my vote away on.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Should We Blame the Market?
Watch five minutes of coverage on the financial crisis and you'll come across one general theme: the markets are to blame. We need more regulation. Go ahead, turn on CNN. How about that, huh.
With the presidential election closing in fast, both candidates, but especially Barack Obama have been pushing for more federal oversight, regulation and assistance. John McCain is less enthusiastic about the regulation, but went ahead and joined Obama in supporting the 700 billion dollar bailout among other measures. And plenty of polls have been showing that people are losing trust in the free market and believe more regulation is required.
Well is this what we should do? Did capitalism fail? Did the markets let us down like they always seem to do? Do we need our benevolent government to step in and save the day? Well if you trust the government to fix this mess you might as well ask the guy who just stabbed you to perform the surgery.
First let me start with a disclaimer, a big one at that. I do not mean to absolve Wall Street of its responsibility. On the aggregate, they screwed up badly. Some, such as Wells Fargo and Bank of America, did the right thing. They played it conservatively when housing prices were skyrocketing and now they're the one's with enough money to buy up all those who got caught up in what Alan Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." However, most of the major firms and CEO's behaved irrationally, irresponsibly and sometimes criminally.
What started this train a rollin' were the flood of sub prime mortgages made by financial institutions to borrowers who had no business buying a home. Many of these loans were interest only or negatively amortized, which basically means that the owners were relying on continued appreciation or otherwise they would be upside down (owe more than the home was worth). Many banks accepted stated income, which boiled down means the borrower simply states how much they make and that's good enough. The stupidity here needs no further elaboration. In addition, many mortgage brokers would do anything and everything they could to get people into these loans because the risk didn't matter to them, they were just in it for the commission. Finally, these mortgages were packaged into mortgage-backed securities that were then sold to investors thereby infecting the entire financial system with garbage loans. Here's a nice little primer on how the whole process worked.
Anyways, when the real estate market finally and inevitably started to take back some of its ridiculous gains, the whole deck of cards collapsed. So again, Wall Street deserves plenty of blame, especially AIG, who after being bailed out is now spending $140,000 on a party for their "top sellers."
Given all of this, you may ask how is not the market's fault you ask? Well gee, where should I begin?
Let's start with the Federal Reserve and its ridiculous monetary policy during the real estate boom. After the dot com bubble burst, the Enron and World Com scandals and the 9-11 attacks the markets looked shaky. Alan Greenspan and the Fed thought that dramatically lowering interest rates could help avert a recession. They lowered the discount rate to 1% and kept it there for about two years! This is a stupidly low rate for a ridiculously stupid period of time. It probably prevented a longer recession after 9-11 (there was still a short one) but the prosperity was all an illusion.
What such a monetary policy did was push floods of liquidity into the market. With people scarred of a tumbling stock market they turned to real estate and the bubble began to form. Housing prices and starts accelerated at record paces and builders built far too many homes and apartments. Why did they do that? Simple, they supplied what demand told them to. Unfortunately the demand was artificial, pumped up by the low interest rates. In turn people started refinancing their newly found equity and used it for all sorts of things (like big screen TVs, new cars, etc.). This spending was what made the economy run. Unfortunately, that money was not only borrowed, it was borrowed against equity that shouldn't have existed in the first place! When the market finally adjusted people found themselves with what amounted to unsecured credit card debt. And predictably the foreclosures started coming en masse.
Unfortunately, this was not the only mistake the government made. Thomas Sowell made a pretty good list, but I'll highlight a couple of the other ones for you. First it was the goal of both the Clinton and Bush administration to increase home ownership. It sounds great, but like most political inventions, these great sounding goals come with unintended consequences. One of the major ways they attempted to influence this trend was with the Community Reinvestment Act. What this program did was push lenders to make loans in poor communities. Sounds altruistic and all, but these lenders need to justify risky loans with higher rewards. So whereas politicians used to be praising banks for making risky, higher interest loans, now they are condemning them. Say what, politicians can be hypocritical... who would have thought?
Then there's the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thing. These are both government created firms that have made it easier to make home loans. Again nice sounding, but it has lead to a steady and artificial growth in real estate prices for a long time. And a little digging will expose how again the politicians cheered Fannie Mae when it made it its goal in 2002 for every American to own a home. Same old goal, same old political cheering and same old unintended consequences. Now look where we are.
There are a litany of other government offenses, but I'll stop there. The main question is do we need more regulation now? There are probably some helpful regulations here and there, but going back to a strictly regulated economy is not the answer. Whenever that temptation befalls you, just remember the airlines used to be heavily regulated and now they are not. If they still were there would be no Southwest or Jet Blue to give you cheap flights to one of the few other countries that we still have a good exchange rate with. Same goes for many other industries. In addition, we would be regulating to prevent this crisis, not the next one. As the famous military slogan goes "we must be prepared to fight the first day of the next war, not the last day of the last war." Unfortunately, the best medicine for this whole mess is probably just time. Time for the market to liquidate the bad debt so we can get back to some sense of normalcy. Then hopefully our government can maintain some semblance of a reasonable fiscal and monetary policy. Damn, good thing you can't see me because I couldn't even write that with a straight face.
With the presidential election closing in fast, both candidates, but especially Barack Obama have been pushing for more federal oversight, regulation and assistance. John McCain is less enthusiastic about the regulation, but went ahead and joined Obama in supporting the 700 billion dollar bailout among other measures. And plenty of polls have been showing that people are losing trust in the free market and believe more regulation is required.
Well is this what we should do? Did capitalism fail? Did the markets let us down like they always seem to do? Do we need our benevolent government to step in and save the day? Well if you trust the government to fix this mess you might as well ask the guy who just stabbed you to perform the surgery.
First let me start with a disclaimer, a big one at that. I do not mean to absolve Wall Street of its responsibility. On the aggregate, they screwed up badly. Some, such as Wells Fargo and Bank of America, did the right thing. They played it conservatively when housing prices were skyrocketing and now they're the one's with enough money to buy up all those who got caught up in what Alan Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." However, most of the major firms and CEO's behaved irrationally, irresponsibly and sometimes criminally.
What started this train a rollin' were the flood of sub prime mortgages made by financial institutions to borrowers who had no business buying a home. Many of these loans were interest only or negatively amortized, which basically means that the owners were relying on continued appreciation or otherwise they would be upside down (owe more than the home was worth). Many banks accepted stated income, which boiled down means the borrower simply states how much they make and that's good enough. The stupidity here needs no further elaboration. In addition, many mortgage brokers would do anything and everything they could to get people into these loans because the risk didn't matter to them, they were just in it for the commission. Finally, these mortgages were packaged into mortgage-backed securities that were then sold to investors thereby infecting the entire financial system with garbage loans. Here's a nice little primer on how the whole process worked.
Anyways, when the real estate market finally and inevitably started to take back some of its ridiculous gains, the whole deck of cards collapsed. So again, Wall Street deserves plenty of blame, especially AIG, who after being bailed out is now spending $140,000 on a party for their "top sellers."
Given all of this, you may ask how is not the market's fault you ask? Well gee, where should I begin?
Let's start with the Federal Reserve and its ridiculous monetary policy during the real estate boom. After the dot com bubble burst, the Enron and World Com scandals and the 9-11 attacks the markets looked shaky. Alan Greenspan and the Fed thought that dramatically lowering interest rates could help avert a recession. They lowered the discount rate to 1% and kept it there for about two years! This is a stupidly low rate for a ridiculously stupid period of time. It probably prevented a longer recession after 9-11 (there was still a short one) but the prosperity was all an illusion.
What such a monetary policy did was push floods of liquidity into the market. With people scarred of a tumbling stock market they turned to real estate and the bubble began to form. Housing prices and starts accelerated at record paces and builders built far too many homes and apartments. Why did they do that? Simple, they supplied what demand told them to. Unfortunately the demand was artificial, pumped up by the low interest rates. In turn people started refinancing their newly found equity and used it for all sorts of things (like big screen TVs, new cars, etc.). This spending was what made the economy run. Unfortunately, that money was not only borrowed, it was borrowed against equity that shouldn't have existed in the first place! When the market finally adjusted people found themselves with what amounted to unsecured credit card debt. And predictably the foreclosures started coming en masse.
Unfortunately, this was not the only mistake the government made. Thomas Sowell made a pretty good list, but I'll highlight a couple of the other ones for you. First it was the goal of both the Clinton and Bush administration to increase home ownership. It sounds great, but like most political inventions, these great sounding goals come with unintended consequences. One of the major ways they attempted to influence this trend was with the Community Reinvestment Act. What this program did was push lenders to make loans in poor communities. Sounds altruistic and all, but these lenders need to justify risky loans with higher rewards. So whereas politicians used to be praising banks for making risky, higher interest loans, now they are condemning them. Say what, politicians can be hypocritical... who would have thought?
Then there's the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thing. These are both government created firms that have made it easier to make home loans. Again nice sounding, but it has lead to a steady and artificial growth in real estate prices for a long time. And a little digging will expose how again the politicians cheered Fannie Mae when it made it its goal in 2002 for every American to own a home. Same old goal, same old political cheering and same old unintended consequences. Now look where we are.
There are a litany of other government offenses, but I'll stop there. The main question is do we need more regulation now? There are probably some helpful regulations here and there, but going back to a strictly regulated economy is not the answer. Whenever that temptation befalls you, just remember the airlines used to be heavily regulated and now they are not. If they still were there would be no Southwest or Jet Blue to give you cheap flights to one of the few other countries that we still have a good exchange rate with. Same goes for many other industries. In addition, we would be regulating to prevent this crisis, not the next one. As the famous military slogan goes "we must be prepared to fight the first day of the next war, not the last day of the last war." Unfortunately, the best medicine for this whole mess is probably just time. Time for the market to liquidate the bad debt so we can get back to some sense of normalcy. Then hopefully our government can maintain some semblance of a reasonable fiscal and monetary policy. Damn, good thing you can't see me because I couldn't even write that with a straight face.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Why Our Manufacturing Jobs Are Leaving (Hint: It’s Not Free Trade)
OK, pose the following question to anyone: “why has the US lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs in last 15 years?” I’d bet good money that the answer will be free trade or maybe NAFTA. It’s just common knowledge. Duh. As paleoconservative Pat Buchanan puts it “Between January 2002 and January 2007, the gargantuan U.S. trade deficit set five straight world records…If this is the fruit of a successful trade policy, what would a failed trade policy look like?” (1) Or Barack Obama who agrees with Pat on approximately nothing is actually in perfect harmony here “It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart.” I’ve even heard Lou Dobbs isn’t a fan. I guess John McCain still supports free trade, but never really gives a rationale for it. That seems pretty standard these days, I mean, look at the embarrassing attempts the guy defending free trade makes in this debate. Countries like China have much lower wages, fewer labor protections and environmental standards so of course every company that can would up and leave the United States if there were no trade barriers. It’s that simple.
Well, that’s a pretty good argument with only one small flaw… it’s complete, utter bullshit. It’s actually not very hard to prove this too, which I just happen to be in the mood to do. Actually, scratch that, I’ll let renowned economist Henry Hazlitt do it for me, suppose
An American exporter sells his goods to a British importer and is paid in British pounds sterling. But he cannot use British pounds to pay the wages of his workers, to buy his wife’s clothes or to buy theater tickets. For all these purposes he needs American dollars. Therefore his British pounds are of no use to him unless he either uses them himself to buy British goods or sells them to some American importer…” (2)
For all intensive purposes the United States is the only country that uses the dollar.* Every dollar that leaves our country must eventually come back. Foreigners could buy up some manufacturing plants here, but if they move them out of the country, any profits they got from the United States would still have to be spent in the United States.
So there really shouldn’t ever be a trade deficit of any major significance. Oh, but you’re saying there are. Well two points need to be made, first in general and then specifically with regards to the United States.
In general, obviously currencies don’t leave and come back instantaneously. There will be up and down cycles. It’s also hard to account for every economic transaction-taking place between individuals in one country and another. This is especially true given there are often large black markets in even the freest economies. And lastly, well governments just lie sometimes. This all becomes obvious when you look at the CIA factbook for 2007, which says the world as a whole is running a $178 billion dollar trade surplus.** This of course is impossible.
Accounting issues only explain small discrepancies though. The United States is a very peculiar case. We just happen to hold the reserve currency of the world. To explain what this is and how it came about we have to go back to the end of World War II. After the war, the Allied governments wanted to set up a system that would facilitate international trade and prevent the hyper nationalistic protectionism of the 1930’s that helped spur the Second World War. John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White designed a system known as Bretton Woods, in which every country in the American sphere of influence tied their currency to the US dollar at a fixed exchange rate and the dollar was in turn tied to gold at $35 and ounce.
Unfortunately, this system was doomed from the beginning; the problem was well, it relied on a wise fiscal policy by US politicians. In 1971, after a decade of paying for guns and butter (the Vietnam war and the Great Society) by inflating the dollar, the US government could no longer justify the $35/ounce exchange rate. Foreign investors started asking for their gold and Nixon responded by closing the gold window (effectively declaring bankruptcy).
The fixed exchange rate system was eventually replaced with floating exchange rates with no gold backing. This allowed investors to set currencies values by bidding on them in relation to each other. Now this system works in principal, but unfortunately it opens up countries to currency attacks. If a government enacts poor policies, investors can leave that currency en masse. Or powerful countries can simply defund a weaker country if they don’t like its policies. Regardless, it leaves countries vunerable as illustrated by the most famous example of such currency implosions, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997.
To avoid these crises (and store a "risk free" currency in case of other problems), governments started stockpiling dollars in reserve to act as a bulwark in case their own currency is attacked. While the dollar was the reserve currency under Bretton Woods, as well as the 70’s and 80’s, governments stockpiles really accelerated 1990’s and 2000's when China started taking off and the fall of communism brought with it a whole host of new countries who, lacking Soviet support, needed to start stockpiling dollars.
Hopefully you can see where this is going. The dollars are no longer coming back to the United States. We buy toys from China and oil from Saudi Arabia and cars from Japan and electronics from Taiwan and cocaine from Mexico and they turn around and stuff those dollars in their central banks. This does two things; first companies no longer have to buy anything from the United States, they can simply outsource their factories and then sell the dollars they collect to the host countries central bank and thus our manufacturing sector is hollowed out. Second, it gives the US government a license to print just about infinite money with out producing inflation.
So now we can have guns and butter part deux but with out the inflation. How wonderful! Unfortunately, as Herb Stein once said, “things that can’t go on forever don’t.” The dollar currently makes up 63.8% of foreign reserves with the euro in a distance second at 26.4%. Unfortunately, as you’ve probably noticed the dollar is sinking in value like a rock. We are printing so much money that central banks are becoming nervous and diversifying into the euro and other currencies. Eventually, if our dollar continues to sink they will pull the plug and all those dollars will come rushing back to the United States. If this happens, the dollar will hyperinflate overnight.
While we may very well be starring a crisis in the face, free trade has nothing to do with it. And free trade certainly has nothing to do with our dwindling manufactuing sector. Anyways, we really don’t even have free trade, as NAFTA and the WTO are managed trade agreements that have plenty of tariffs and subsidies snuck into them. As Milton Friedman said when Charlie Rose asked him about the proposed Central American version of NAFTA “I discovered it was a thousand pages long and every page has exceptions to free trade. It’s not a free trade agreement.” (3) Still, what we have isn’t rampant protectionism either. However, if we just throw up a bunch of tariffs right now other countries would simply retaliate (or possibly sell off their dollars) and prices would rise with out our manufacturing sector returning. It would be Smoot-Hawley all over again. It’s that simple.
*There are technically 10 small countries that also use the dollar (usually secondarily to another currency). However, since the dollar is usually secondary and the countries are small this has a relatively small effect on trade balances. In addition, the fact these countries use the dollar is simply more evidence of the whole dollar hegemony problem.
**The CIA doesn’t have data on seven small countries and a few have old data. However, every country with old data has a deficit/surplus fewer than 100 million dollars and similar estimations can be made for the seven exclusions which include the likes of North Korea. These discrepancies certainly wouldn't even get close to adding up to 178 billion dollars.
(1) Patrick Buchanan, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed are Tearing America Apart, Pg. 203, Thomas Dunne Books, Copyright 2007
(2) Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Pg. 70, Laissez Faire Books, Copyright 1979
(3) Milton Friedman, An Hour with Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, Charlie Rose, PBS, 12/26/2005
Well, that’s a pretty good argument with only one small flaw… it’s complete, utter bullshit. It’s actually not very hard to prove this too, which I just happen to be in the mood to do. Actually, scratch that, I’ll let renowned economist Henry Hazlitt do it for me, suppose
An American exporter sells his goods to a British importer and is paid in British pounds sterling. But he cannot use British pounds to pay the wages of his workers, to buy his wife’s clothes or to buy theater tickets. For all these purposes he needs American dollars. Therefore his British pounds are of no use to him unless he either uses them himself to buy British goods or sells them to some American importer…” (2)
For all intensive purposes the United States is the only country that uses the dollar.* Every dollar that leaves our country must eventually come back. Foreigners could buy up some manufacturing plants here, but if they move them out of the country, any profits they got from the United States would still have to be spent in the United States.
So there really shouldn’t ever be a trade deficit of any major significance. Oh, but you’re saying there are. Well two points need to be made, first in general and then specifically with regards to the United States.
In general, obviously currencies don’t leave and come back instantaneously. There will be up and down cycles. It’s also hard to account for every economic transaction-taking place between individuals in one country and another. This is especially true given there are often large black markets in even the freest economies. And lastly, well governments just lie sometimes. This all becomes obvious when you look at the CIA factbook for 2007, which says the world as a whole is running a $178 billion dollar trade surplus.** This of course is impossible.
Accounting issues only explain small discrepancies though. The United States is a very peculiar case. We just happen to hold the reserve currency of the world. To explain what this is and how it came about we have to go back to the end of World War II. After the war, the Allied governments wanted to set up a system that would facilitate international trade and prevent the hyper nationalistic protectionism of the 1930’s that helped spur the Second World War. John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White designed a system known as Bretton Woods, in which every country in the American sphere of influence tied their currency to the US dollar at a fixed exchange rate and the dollar was in turn tied to gold at $35 and ounce.
Unfortunately, this system was doomed from the beginning; the problem was well, it relied on a wise fiscal policy by US politicians. In 1971, after a decade of paying for guns and butter (the Vietnam war and the Great Society) by inflating the dollar, the US government could no longer justify the $35/ounce exchange rate. Foreign investors started asking for their gold and Nixon responded by closing the gold window (effectively declaring bankruptcy).
The fixed exchange rate system was eventually replaced with floating exchange rates with no gold backing. This allowed investors to set currencies values by bidding on them in relation to each other. Now this system works in principal, but unfortunately it opens up countries to currency attacks. If a government enacts poor policies, investors can leave that currency en masse. Or powerful countries can simply defund a weaker country if they don’t like its policies. Regardless, it leaves countries vunerable as illustrated by the most famous example of such currency implosions, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997.
To avoid these crises (and store a "risk free" currency in case of other problems), governments started stockpiling dollars in reserve to act as a bulwark in case their own currency is attacked. While the dollar was the reserve currency under Bretton Woods, as well as the 70’s and 80’s, governments stockpiles really accelerated 1990’s and 2000's when China started taking off and the fall of communism brought with it a whole host of new countries who, lacking Soviet support, needed to start stockpiling dollars.
Hopefully you can see where this is going. The dollars are no longer coming back to the United States. We buy toys from China and oil from Saudi Arabia and cars from Japan and electronics from Taiwan and cocaine from Mexico and they turn around and stuff those dollars in their central banks. This does two things; first companies no longer have to buy anything from the United States, they can simply outsource their factories and then sell the dollars they collect to the host countries central bank and thus our manufacturing sector is hollowed out. Second, it gives the US government a license to print just about infinite money with out producing inflation.
So now we can have guns and butter part deux but with out the inflation. How wonderful! Unfortunately, as Herb Stein once said, “things that can’t go on forever don’t.” The dollar currently makes up 63.8% of foreign reserves with the euro in a distance second at 26.4%. Unfortunately, as you’ve probably noticed the dollar is sinking in value like a rock. We are printing so much money that central banks are becoming nervous and diversifying into the euro and other currencies. Eventually, if our dollar continues to sink they will pull the plug and all those dollars will come rushing back to the United States. If this happens, the dollar will hyperinflate overnight.
While we may very well be starring a crisis in the face, free trade has nothing to do with it. And free trade certainly has nothing to do with our dwindling manufactuing sector. Anyways, we really don’t even have free trade, as NAFTA and the WTO are managed trade agreements that have plenty of tariffs and subsidies snuck into them. As Milton Friedman said when Charlie Rose asked him about the proposed Central American version of NAFTA “I discovered it was a thousand pages long and every page has exceptions to free trade. It’s not a free trade agreement.” (3) Still, what we have isn’t rampant protectionism either. However, if we just throw up a bunch of tariffs right now other countries would simply retaliate (or possibly sell off their dollars) and prices would rise with out our manufacturing sector returning. It would be Smoot-Hawley all over again. It’s that simple.
*There are technically 10 small countries that also use the dollar (usually secondarily to another currency). However, since the dollar is usually secondary and the countries are small this has a relatively small effect on trade balances. In addition, the fact these countries use the dollar is simply more evidence of the whole dollar hegemony problem.
**The CIA doesn’t have data on seven small countries and a few have old data. However, every country with old data has a deficit/surplus fewer than 100 million dollars and similar estimations can be made for the seven exclusions which include the likes of North Korea. These discrepancies certainly wouldn't even get close to adding up to 178 billion dollars.
(1) Patrick Buchanan, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed are Tearing America Apart, Pg. 203, Thomas Dunne Books, Copyright 2007
(2) Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Pg. 70, Laissez Faire Books, Copyright 1979
(3) Milton Friedman, An Hour with Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, Charlie Rose, PBS, 12/26/2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
