The Fed Reserve is now going to print $1,200,000,000,000 to pay some of the US debt (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/19/business/econwatch/entry4877724.shtml). This just weeks after the "Stimuless Bill" was passed which will add $800,000,000,000 to our national liability.
Isn't this what happened with the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic) which lead to hyper-inflation which helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler to take power?
Radicalism breeds radicalism. Tough times ahead?
"The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance." - John Maynard Keynes, economist, commenting on Inflation in the Weimar Republic
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
America's Passing
I was thinking that one of the fundamental things behind the Stimuless Bill and some of the verbiage behind the representatives behind it are that it puts money in the hands of consumers. It's consumer focused. That is, put money into the hands of consumers, they spend, and that puts the economy back on track.
Such a stance has both blinders on to other real economic side effects of such a focus and blinders to the side effects on liberty and rights of others.
For one, yes...you can put money into the hands of consumers who spend it. But to do that, you take money away from consumers AND take money away from investors/savers/producers. The former reduces the net positive effect and the latter actually more dramatically affects the economy even more. You take money away from those who produce for the economy, invest in the economy, and provide cash for the economy....and instead give it to some who may have no capability to know how to manage money in the first place. I've heard alot of political wind about how some of their "economists" are on board with this, but I haven't seen ANY analysis about this. And the obvious side effects I see and that I know others see, need to be explicitly addressed in that analysis. Instead, we just leave it up to representatives who we for some reason think are experts on money and business. With such a huge amount of money being spent as part of the bill, that we're forced to pay, we have a right to expect some serious analysis. And if we have a transparent government process, where is it. We also have a right to expect that the analysis be provided on multiple levels, in laymens terms, and in rigorous detail for the interested. Where is it?
Secondly, even if this analysis were provided, the policy basically says the government has the right to TAKE money from others who would otherwise save, invest, and produce, and GIVE to those who consume. Now we all know there are more consumers than investors/savers/producers in the world...and especially the U.S. these days. But this policy basically says that these consumers somehow have privilege to this money over the minority. But in the Consitutional republic in which we live, over government was set up as a "government of laws, and not of men" per John Adams. As an "attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify."
Now, the President swears during the oath "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and our representatives swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." Because the constitution requires that they "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution".
But today, this very day, it is common and unchecked practice, and as directly reflected in the Stimuless Bill, to FORCE a minority of people (e.g. savers, investors, and producers) to pay for other people's causes and to TAKE money from these savers/producers/investors and give this money to consumers. And while this power is a power of government that the Constitution attempts to limit, it is seemingly without limit, to the current tune of $800 Billion and more on the way, that the representative who've sworn to uphold the Constitution, now ignore and flex power in the face of the Constitution and basic individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And it is with this complete disregard of the Constitution and oath, that these representatives commit an act of treason against the United States in plain sight and complacent compliance of the American public. America has died in our lifetime.
Such a stance has both blinders on to other real economic side effects of such a focus and blinders to the side effects on liberty and rights of others.
For one, yes...you can put money into the hands of consumers who spend it. But to do that, you take money away from consumers AND take money away from investors/savers/producers. The former reduces the net positive effect and the latter actually more dramatically affects the economy even more. You take money away from those who produce for the economy, invest in the economy, and provide cash for the economy....and instead give it to some who may have no capability to know how to manage money in the first place. I've heard alot of political wind about how some of their "economists" are on board with this, but I haven't seen ANY analysis about this. And the obvious side effects I see and that I know others see, need to be explicitly addressed in that analysis. Instead, we just leave it up to representatives who we for some reason think are experts on money and business. With such a huge amount of money being spent as part of the bill, that we're forced to pay, we have a right to expect some serious analysis. And if we have a transparent government process, where is it. We also have a right to expect that the analysis be provided on multiple levels, in laymens terms, and in rigorous detail for the interested. Where is it?
Secondly, even if this analysis were provided, the policy basically says the government has the right to TAKE money from others who would otherwise save, invest, and produce, and GIVE to those who consume. Now we all know there are more consumers than investors/savers/producers in the world...and especially the U.S. these days. But this policy basically says that these consumers somehow have privilege to this money over the minority. But in the Consitutional republic in which we live, over government was set up as a "government of laws, and not of men" per John Adams. As an "attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify."
Now, the President swears during the oath "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and our representatives swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." Because the constitution requires that they "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution".
But today, this very day, it is common and unchecked practice, and as directly reflected in the Stimuless Bill, to FORCE a minority of people (e.g. savers, investors, and producers) to pay for other people's causes and to TAKE money from these savers/producers/investors and give this money to consumers. And while this power is a power of government that the Constitution attempts to limit, it is seemingly without limit, to the current tune of $800 Billion and more on the way, that the representative who've sworn to uphold the Constitution, now ignore and flex power in the face of the Constitution and basic individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And it is with this complete disregard of the Constitution and oath, that these representatives commit an act of treason against the United States in plain sight and complacent compliance of the American public. America has died in our lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)