Why isnt Obama listening?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm not a fan of the "system" to which you refer--no matter who is pulling the strings--Bush, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, FDR, Hoover . . . whoever. And I certainly do not think it is sustainable. Once started, it must continue on the same path of expansionist government intervention or collapse. The idea that a little injection of Federal money into the market to artificially kickstart it, as you hint at, is not really necessary. The system, as is known, if left to itself, will correct. The fear is that the temporary "collapse" will be too painful for many. The problem, among other things, is that it has become a habit and expectation that the inevitable "failures" must be "corrected" by government, and by the same implication, the government must be at fault. Thus, having been given, or having taken, the mantle of responsibility, the government not only begins to assume the role of director not only with injections of money, but begins to restructure the "system" with regulations, laws, penalties, tax incentives and and tax burdens so that it DOES become part of the problem. And the "system" does skew to government intervention and control. And it eventually lapses from a more natural, evolutionary process into a planned, top-down directed, more static, theoretical house of cards that constantly needs government fingers in the dike. The process is inflationary, thus creating constantly more expensive and inevitable "fixes." And it constantly heads toward that tipping point of the inevitable percentage of the economy in the government's hand being too great for the private sector to sustain.

I don't think the bank bailout was about a little pain, but rather a real fear about the entire collapse of our economic system. The Stimulus package is more debatable, but there certainly are many economists that believe it was very influential in averting a depression or much deeper recession. That's not to say it had a favorable return of course, but soft benefits are always difficult to quantify.

As for government becoming "part of the problem" in these times...the government is already part of the system.We don't have a free market but rather a regulated free market. The American entrepreneurial spirit and freedoms make us the global engine of innovation, but left unchecked these same forces will rip us apart in the name of shareholder value.

Plus ca chance, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think the bank bailout was about a little pain, but rather a real fear about the entire collapse of our economic system. The Stimulus package is more debatable, but there certainly are many economists that believe it was very influential in averting a depression or much deeper recession. That's not to say it had a favorable return of course, but soft benefits are always difficult to quantify.

I didn't say "a little pain". I said too much pain for many. I don't think there was a fear of an "entire collapse", certainly not of our "entire" economic system. The great portion of our free market will survive and correct the inevitable failures. Even you, in this thread, have said that "the system will more than likely correct itself," and that "Obama's policies won't likely influence the macro trends, that the system has 20 to 50 year cycles that bring stability over the long haul.

As for government becoming "part of the problem" in these times...the government is already part of the system.We don't have a free market but rather a regulated free market. The American entrepreneurial spirit and freedoms make us the global engine of innovation, but left unchecked these same forces will rip us apart in the name of shareholder value.
-spence

The government has always been part of the system. The question is, how much a part should it be, and what kind of system will it be if it intrudes beyond a certain point. My earlier questions to Joe were sincere. "Is there some magical mixed economy that balances the government intrusion into the hard hearted market so that life, liberty, and happiness are guaranteed?" "Has that ever occurred?" Well, they were partially sincere. As the founders knew, these conditions could not be guaranteed, but they created a form of governance that would allow individuals to pursue their own happiness and to fight for and maintain their life and liberty. My last question to Joe asking if Obama's policies are trying to steer us back to that balanced moment was purely rhetorical. l obviously believe that huge government intrusion of massive public spending does not only obliterate any balance, but creates an even greater unsustainability than Joe fears.

How far do you go in checking shareholder value before it suppresses entrepeneurial spirit and the freedoms to innovate? And how large of a tax burden to pay for the votes of "the working class" to guarantee their unguaranteeable happiness can the entrepeneurial spirit sustain before Atlas shrugs? And what unleashed that American entrepeneurial spirit in the first place?