When it comes to many things, and especially when it's the economy, the contrarian viewpoint usually holds more truth than what the masses can recognize. This article is optimistic about the future. So am I, but for different reasons. Here are my thoughts about this comment the author made:
"The cry of creeping socialism has likewise echoed (falsely) through the decades. In 1935, the day after Franklin Roosevelt delivered a fireside chat about the need for Social Security and other regulations, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce official accused Roosevelt of trying to "Sovietize America." The medical profession—and Ronald Reagan—swore up and down that the passage of Medicare and Medicaid would transform the United States into an English-speaking version of the U.S.S.R.
Those who fret about an era of slow-growth socialism presume that our government is incapable of learning from mistakes and crafting intelligent policies. The prospect of an enhanced safety net wasn't incompatible with growth in the 1930s and 1960s, and it isn't now. And today, state ownership and control of private enterprise is a temporary last resort, not an enduring governing strategy."
I think government is incapable of helping the economy. We, as Americans, succeed IN SPITE of it, not BECAUSE of it. “State ownership and control of private enterprise” won’t stop the economic recovery, but it unnecessarily delays it.
But, like the author, I am optimistic as well. Only, my optimism comes from the belief that we will overcome whatever obstacles this administration tries to put in the way of our economic recovery.
My biggest concern for the long term health of our economy is our reliance on our false fiat money system and the dangerous Federal Reserve. Those who falsely believe that the unregulated free market has failed us are too ignorant to recognize that we do not, nor have we ever had a “free market”. Our economy is a centrally planned economy based on unsecured currency (not backed by gold) and an unregulated government entity (The Federal Reserve). The free market doesn’t need to be regulated. The government created Federal Reserve does!
The last chapter in Ron Paul’s The Revolution addresses this issue and it scares the crap out of me. BTW- That book is the most important one I have read since Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan. Both books have altered the way I view the world, both politically and philosophically.
Our economy will recover, not because of what has happened in the past, nor because the government is sticking it's dirty little fingers in it, but because of the ingenuity of the great American entrepreneurial mind.
Posts
4 comments:
I agree. Americans have been accused at many times through history and in current times of being 'soft', 'weak', 'ignorant, and 'immoral' (insert your own word) by other countries and governments in the world. But, and funny how this happens, we are continuously sheparding the world, and this economic crisis is no different. Like you said, Dane, we, the people, will persevere in spite of our government, not because of our government.
I, too, was struck by the part of the article where socialism was discussed. Socialism is a point word, which ignites fear in people, almost like no one has ever been touched by socialism before this election. By definition, much of our life is 'socialized': public education at all levels, our police and fire departments (unless volunteer, and even then), Social Security, maintenance of infrastructures like roadways, bridges, etc., health care for various groups of people, such as elderly and the poor, many of the farming programs in place, municipal sewer and water systems, etc. There are parts of our life that most wouldn’t want unsocialized. Trust me on this.
Our private septic system has frozen twice since we have lived in our home, and we couldn’t use out toilet until the drainfield was unthawed and/or the holding tank was emptied. Considering everyone else’s septic systems in the area were frozen, too, we were put on a waiting list for help, and have gone up to two weeks without the ability to use the toilet in our home. Is anyone willing to give up their socialized municipal sewer systems for privatization? Likely not.
There are instances where socialism is a good thing. There isn’t anyone who reads this blog who has lived without the benefits of socialism.
I agree that socialism should have its place in our lives, but within boundaries, and that the current economic recovery plans are pushing the envelope a bit. The government shouldn’t have such vested interests in the actual success or failure of financial institutions. I also agree that the fiat currency system has weakened our country overall. I would guess that if you asked most people what backs our money, most would say gold. What a surprise they would have if they looked into it!
How many blogs could one write on all of these generalized topics?
Interesting point about Roosevelt, a man whom our current president greatly admires: His policies caused a recession that lasted 9 years.
Bad economic policy and legislation can keep our country off the growth path for a long time.
Budsy,
The federal government has spent a gudgillion dollars over it's 200 plus years. It would be impossible to spend that much money without doing at least a couple of things half ways worth while.
I would also point out that a "socialized municipal sewer system" is a lot different than one instituted by the federal government.
The more local a government is, the more effective it is. Local government is more answerable to the people, where, when the power and money is transfered to Washington, WE become more answerable to the federal government.
This twit is all smug about "how can anyone be against the federal government building schools?" What she doesn't get is that some of us want LOCAL government to build our schools. It keeps our schools in our control. When the money comes from the federal government, we are essentially giving them the power to dictate how things are done.
Take for instance the 55 mph speed limit in the 70's. Sounded like a good idea. It would reduce gas consumption and save lives. So the all-knowing, all-powerful federal government forced the states to adopt it because, if they didn't, the federal government would withhold federal highway financing.
The federal government knows best. Not.
The 55 mph speed limit makes great sense if you live in say, Rhode Island. But apparently no one in Washington has ever had to drive across Texas or Montana. In fact, it made so little sense in Montana that they were forced to forgo federal funding for their highways for years because of it.
In a nutshell, if you want your sewer system (or schools, or roads, or mass transit, or anything else) socialized, make sure it is your municipality controlling it, not the federal government...
Post a Comment