In John Stossel’s latest column he takes on Barack Obama and suggests his policies will lead us further down the “Road To Serfdom”.
Obama promises:
“We will change the world … There is nothing we can’t do, nothing we can’t accomplish if we are unified.”
Who is this “we” politicians always cite?
We can change the world for the better if “we” means hundreds of millions of free people pursuing their interests, inventing, building, parenting, helping.
But the politicians’ “we” is different. It means government. “We” will take your money by force and order you about. A democracy can become the tyranny of the majority. That’s no way to create prosperity.
Quote of the Day: “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
– James Bovard, Source: Lost Rights. The Destruction of American Liberty (St. Martin’s Press: New York, 1994), p. 333
Free market advocates must speak in favor of business regulation. This may sound strange, but that’s only because the politicians have conditioned us to think about things in the wrong way.
The politicians are busy blaming DE-regulation for the current financial crisis. This is partly self-serving, but it’s also due to a defect in the way politicians think.
The politicians think government regulations are the ONLY regulations that exist. Therefore, in their mind, to repeal a government regulation is to DE-regulate.
They are very wrong.
Often, the repeal of a government regulation will result in the restoration of free market regulations that are far stronger.
Free market regulation comes in several forms. One involves customers taking their business elsewhere when a company fails to provide a good product at a good price. Businesses are regulated by their customers.
Please notice that the government operates under different rules . . .
In his weekly Texas Straight Talk, Ron Paul congratulates Barack Omaba for making history this election, and voices his hopes that the new administration will not make the same inerventionist mistakes that were make in the 30s which exacerbated the problems of the Great Depression:
With the election behind us, our country turns hopeful eyes to the future. I have a few hopes of my own.
I congratulate our first African-American president-elect.Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly would be proud to see this day.We are stronger for embracing diversity, and I am hopeful that we can continue working through the tensions and wrongs of the past and become a more just and colorblind society.I hope this new administration will help bring us together, and not further divide us.I have always found that freedom is the best way to break down barriers.A free society emphasizes the importance of individuals, and not because they are part of a certain group.That’s the only way equal justice can be achieved.
We will face more tough economic problems during this new administration.In fact, the worst is yet to come.A vast amount of problematic mortgages have not begun to reset their variable interest rates and go into default.We already have unprecedented deficits, spending is out of control, and more big industries are coming to government with their hands out.My hope is that this administration will handle this economic crisis better than the interventionists and big government spenders of the 1930’s, the bureaucrats that prolonged the Depression.I hope that new government programs and spiderwebs of red tape do not pop up to interfere with American productivity, and that we can quickly get our financial footing again.We have to understand that an economic correction needs to take place and the only way out of the coming recession is to go through it.Efforts to avoid it can only prolong it.I hope we can somehow find our way back to sound money and reject corporate cronyism.
We cannot address our budget problems at home without changing our disastrous foreign policy abroad.I am hopeful that the new administration can take on the mantle of peace and diplomacy in foreign policy that many Americans feel they were promised.Many other nations also have this hope, which exudes from their congratulatory sentiments offered after the election.They hope that national sovereignty will be respected.They hope that through diplomacy violence and war can be averted.I hope so too.One thing is unquestionable: our aggressive foreign policy of the past has been costly, in blood and in treasure.Our treasure is running out, and fewer volunteers are stepping up to enable that foreign policy.So for these reasons, if we are to continue to have an all-volunteer military, and see prosperity again in the future, I have every reason to hope our foreign policy will change.In order for it to remain the same, mandatory military service would have to return, as well as accelerated theft through debt and inflation to pay for it.I have a hard time imagining popular support for these policies, simply for the sake of war and conquest, when we clearly want peace.
I have many hopes for the future in this time of transition.But I have seen this country face many forks in the road, and sadly take the wrong one too many times.We have heard a lot of talk, and it remains to be seen what actions and specific policies that talk will translate into.So while I may be hopeful, I remain deeply concerned about our future.
Ron Paul was interviewed on Brian and The Judge on FOX Radio this morning. This interview is classic Dr. Paul. Very interesting topics were discussed. Ron Paul was able to describe why he doesn’t like talking about “trickle down or trickle up” economics, but instead wants the financial conversation to focus on freedom and individual liberty.
Brian Kilmeade suggests that if John McCain offered Ron Paul some type of deal that it was possible that McCain could have won the election. Dr. Paul thinks otherwise.
This is definitely worth a listen.
The interview lasts about 11 minutes. Listen below.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Ron Paul appeared on FOX News with Neil Cavuto today to discuss the latest bailout package: adding another $50 Billion of taxpayer money to the coffers of AIG. Ron Paul is like a beautifully welcomed broken record. A few choice quotes from this latest appearance from Dr. Paul are listed below along with the video.
“When companies get too big and make mistakes they should fail.”
“We’re propping up all the bad mistakes.” (which penalizes the people that made the right choices)
“Governments can’t make the correct decisions. They aren’t smart enough.”
“This whole idea that Washington are genuises… that they can do central economic planning. In this country we don’t call it socialism we call it interventionism and a planned economy.”
Obama coming in is a lot like “Hoover leaving and Roosevelt coming in.”
The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.
“The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that’s a big problem,” said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. “In a liquid market, this wouldn’t matter, but we’re not. The market is very nervous and very thin.”
Many millions of people swept up in “Obama fever” this election were naively duped (mostly due to a lack of understanding of the Constitution and how the government operates) into believing that Barack “The One” Obama would be able to fix all the nation’s troubles. Sheldon Richman of The Future of Freedom Foundation discusses Obama’s slogan “Yes We Can” in light of political reality:
Barack Obama will assume the presidency on a wave of hope among millions of Americans that he will deliver on promises that countless politicians have made before him. Rising above partisanship and committed to solving long-festering problems, Obama will inspire and unify the American people and, as a result, move the crusty Washington political apparatus to at long last serve the interests of all.
At least that’s the theory and the widely held expectation. The truth is that some political promises cannot be kept because they run up against the wall of reality, namely, the unmalleable laws of economics. The sooner Obama learns this, the easier it will be on everyone and the more good he will be capable of. Because of those laws, which are every bit as real as the laws of physics, government cannot directly do the things Obama wants to do: raise wages, create jobs, provide universal medical care, improve education, innovate on energy, and the rest. But indirectly he can help bring those things about. How? By freeing the economic process of all impediments and distortions, including taxes on production, regulations, subsidies, and guarantees to business. The free market, which consists of free individuals cooperating through consent and the division of labor, can deliver those things and more.
The beauty of a free market (oh, how I wish we had one!) is that companies that act responsibly and perform well (create quality products or services, create jobs, etc.) will thrive and the ones that act irresponsibly (create subpar products or services, take on risky debt, etc) will fail. It’s Darwinism as its finest. If governments intervene and “prop up” failing businesses, they’re doing nothing more than condoning and legitimizing the poor business practices that caused the businesses to fail in the first place.
In my opinion, GM and Ford have long been really poor companies. I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of their balance sheet, but their products are shoddy at best. If a company puts out junk for a product, why would we want to subsidize it? Today’s article at the Ludwig von Mises Institute comments on the impending bailout of GM:
General Motors has once again approached the federal government with its hand out. It should not be forgotten that in September of 2008, Congress gave the “big three” automakers a loan totaling $25 billion. Now they are back. This time they say that with a mere $50 billion they can turn things around and become profitable in the future. The management of GM and Ford as well as the UAW have been meeting with Nancy Pelosi to arrange a deal. GM claims that if the government does not give them the money they demand it will spell doom for the company and thus the entire US economy.
Let’s consider the impact of GM ceasing to exist — highly unlikely even if they declare bankruptcy. Hypothetically, GM would close its doors and all 266,000 workers would be unemployed, never to find work again, or so GM would have the public believe. GM maintains that it is really in the best interest of the country and economy to continue to support their failing business model. After all, in what kind of a world would the government allow a company that employs 266,000 workers to fail?
If I had an ounce of gold for every time Ron Paul was right I’d be one rich freedom lover. The latest proof of Ron Paul’s soothsaying prowess comes in downright scary words from two European leaders. They react to the current financial crisis with rhetoric pushing for a global society. Both Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are advocating this evil.
First, let us digest the words of Brown, who plans to say the following (in part) during his speech Monday (today) at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet:
“The alliance between Britain and the U.S. — and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. — can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order”.
“My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society.”
Not surprisingly, Ron Paul was right to worry about world leaders using the financial crisis as an excuse to create a more globalized and internationally regulated economy. I don’t think I’ve read a more frightening sequence of words in a very long time. I thought Brown was considered a “conservative”? This proves he is a Bush-style neo-conservative, and not a true Old Right conservative.
Liberty Maven
