"There are many positive alternatives (including these)
that are not being formally discussed. This is a mistake.
And more to the point, the last time the government tried
to bail out the economy with drastic action, we ended up
in the Great Depression.
I've said it before, and I will continue to say it as often as it needs repeating.
This "crisis" and "recession" is artificially pumped up and has been influenced by the various alarmist talk of the past year, which was designed in part to promote the "hope 'n change" mantra of a certain presidential candidate, and promote the growth of government control over the economy.
Such a campaign erodes confidence unnecessarily, causing the intensity of the downturn to degenerate to the level of crisis.
It didn't have to be this way, and those who talked us out of consumer, investor, and lender confidence bear a large amount of the responsibility for the depth of the current situation, whether they like it or not.
that are not being formally discussed. This is a mistake.
And more to the point, the last time the government tried
to bail out the economy with drastic action, we ended up
in the Great Depression.
If we really want to 'change'
the way government and the private sector interact, why is
the way government and the private sector interact, why is
the US government still trying the same old policies that
failed in the past? Tax cuts have worked before, so if
deficits don’t matter, why not try a different kind of surge
– a private-sector, incentive-creating one?"
failed in the past? Tax cuts have worked before, so if
deficits don’t matter, why not try a different kind of surge
– a private-sector, incentive-creating one?"
I've said it before, and I will continue to say it as often as it needs repeating.
This "crisis" and "recession" is artificially pumped up and has been influenced by the various alarmist talk of the past year, which was designed in part to promote the "hope 'n change" mantra of a certain presidential candidate, and promote the growth of government control over the economy.
Such a campaign erodes confidence unnecessarily, causing the intensity of the downturn to degenerate to the level of crisis.
It didn't have to be this way, and those who talked us out of consumer, investor, and lender confidence bear a large amount of the responsibility for the depth of the current situation, whether they like it or not.
Rick Moran discussed it here:
"No one denies that there is a crisis. No one is underestimating the potential for catastrophe. My problem - our problem - is that in this, a time when honest appraisals of the situation are needed, we have little or no confidence that our newspapers, radio programs, or the cable newsnets are delivering what they are supposed to be giving us; the facts of the situation and not trying to scare us into buying their product or watching their programs by hyping the bad news."
Now Obama is talking about how "things will get worse before they get better".
Art Laffer has some thoughts about that:
"No one likes to see people lose their homes when housing prices fall and they can't afford to pay their mortgages; nor does any one of us enjoy watching banks go belly-up for making subprime loans without enough equity. But the taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of the mortgage transaction.
If you don't believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they'll do with Wall Street."
Is it any wonder that investment money is out of the market, and the wild market swings continue unabated?
The facts tell a different story:
"Our analysis has raised questions about the claims made for the mechanism where by the financial crisis is affecting the overall economy. We emphasize that we do not dispute that the United States is undergoing a financial crisis and that the United States economy may currently be in a recession or may experience one in the near future, perhaps even a very deep one. We do not dispute that spreads between safe securities and risky securities have increased.
Our main point is that policymakers have not done the hard work of convincing the public or even academic economists of the precise nature of the market failure they see,of presenting hard evidence, not speculation, that differentiates their view of the data from other views, and the logic by which the particular intervention they are advocating will fix this market failure. We feel that a trillion dollar intervention warrants a bit more serious analysis than we have seen."
Be sure to look at the graphs presented at the end.
"No one denies that there is a crisis. No one is underestimating the potential for catastrophe. My problem - our problem - is that in this, a time when honest appraisals of the situation are needed, we have little or no confidence that our newspapers, radio programs, or the cable newsnets are delivering what they are supposed to be giving us; the facts of the situation and not trying to scare us into buying their product or watching their programs by hyping the bad news."
Now Obama is talking about how "things will get worse before they get better".
Art Laffer has some thoughts about that:
"No one likes to see people lose their homes when housing prices fall and they can't afford to pay their mortgages; nor does any one of us enjoy watching banks go belly-up for making subprime loans without enough equity. But the taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of the mortgage transaction.
But here's the rub. Now enter the government and the prospects of a kinder and gentler economy. To alleviate the obvious hardships to both homeowners and banks, the government commits to buy mortgages and inject capital into banks, which on the face of it seems like a very nice thing to do. But unfortunately in this world there is no tooth fairy. And the government doesn't create anything; it just redistributes.
Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.
Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.
If you don't believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they'll do with Wall Street."
Is it any wonder that investment money is out of the market, and the wild market swings continue unabated?
The facts tell a different story:
"Our analysis has raised questions about the claims made for the mechanism where by the financial crisis is affecting the overall economy. We emphasize that we do not dispute that the United States is undergoing a financial crisis and that the United States economy may currently be in a recession or may experience one in the near future, perhaps even a very deep one. We do not dispute that spreads between safe securities and risky securities have increased.
Our main point is that policymakers have not done the hard work of convincing the public or even academic economists of the precise nature of the market failure they see,of presenting hard evidence, not speculation, that differentiates their view of the data from other views, and the logic by which the particular intervention they are advocating will fix this market failure. We feel that a trillion dollar intervention warrants a bit more serious analysis than we have seen."
Be sure to look at the graphs presented at the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment