What Obama Could Do To Calm Financial Markets, Right Now


He Could Even Touch Off a Huge Rally

I think we’re all getting a quite vivid sense that President-elect Obama’s way of handling tough situations is to set his jaw, furrow his brow, stare purposefully forward, say reassuring things, but on no account to make any clear statements of intent, or to actually do anything.

At least one of the consequences of this extremely risk-averse approach to leadership, is that financial markets are completely in the dark about what they can expect from the new government.

And when financial markets don’t know what to expect, they always err on the side of excessive caution. Hence the great difficulty they’ve been having in finding a bottom to bounce off from.

The stock and bond markets appear to be discounting an economic future that is little short of catastrophic. Since total catastrophe is one of the least likely outcomes, it stands to reason that markets are currently underpriced.

But that’s not to say they can’t very easily become a lot more underpriced!

Obama could sweep away a lot of this uncertainty and unreasoning fear with no more than a ten-minute news conference.

He could stand up, with the towering Paul Volcker, the sour-pussed Larry Summers and the sardonic-looking Tim Geithner standing behind him, and say the following:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve consulted at length with my economic team. We’re acutely aware that our economy is facing great uncertainty. We understand that our system is a capitalistic one. We intend to do whatever it takes to get business and capital working again, for the sake of every consumer and working person in America.

We also recognize our critical responsibility to the rest of the world. As the pre-eminent economic power, it’s up to us to lead global markets back to health and prosperity.

I’m announcing the following key decisions, which we will stand by until our markets are back to normal, employment is growing, and our economy is healthy again:

All tax increases on capital, dividends, and business income are OFF THE TABLE.

All protectionist legislation, including increased tariffs and import duties, are OFF THE TABLE.

All new regulations, mandated costs and taxes on businesses, including export businesses, are OFF THE TABLE.

That is all. Thank you.”

If Obama were to give this speech, you’d see explosive market rallies, and everyone would heave a big sigh of relief.

So how about it, Mr. President-elect?

-Francis Cianfrocca

Category: , , , ,

RSS feed | Trackback URI

97 Comments Leave a comment

Francis...

Attack Mode Monday, December 1st at 4:49PM EST (link)

Why is this now reasonable when it was not reasonable when conservatives offered these types of solutions prior to us becoming the bailout nation?

“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.

The bailout didn't work.

birdmojo Monday, December 1st at 4:54PM EST (link)

Time for Plan B.

(Hey, maybe the problem with the first bailout was that we didn’t give the government enough power to give away even MORE money!)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

Bird...

Attack Mode Monday, December 1st at 4:59PM EST (link)

Maybe we should just totally give in and allow the gov’t to just put us all on a permanent allowance and use all the saved money to bailout everybody!! Wait…that’s socialism!!!

;^)

“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.

Compassionate Conservativism

birdmojo Monday, December 1st at 5:07PM EST (link)

Translates to “we’re increasing your allowance”.

Eight years later, we’re wondering why there are fewer adults around than there used to be.

Perhaps more compassion is called for.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

Bird...

Attack Mode Monday, December 1st at 5:14PM EST (link)

A permanent cycle of digressive childhood….you may be on to something…;^)

“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.

 
 
 
 
 

Here's my offer......

Kenny Solomon Monday, December 1st at 5:20PM EST (link)

If Mr, Obama says that, plus leaves the 1st and 2nd Amendments alone, I’ll buy him a corned beef sandwich for lunch every day of his administration.

I’m serious.

He can’t possibly pass on that offer.

I’m a corned beef addict too, so I know.

Of course you can have my guns……. Bullets first.
I didn’t say rounds, shells or magazines……
I said bullets first.

 

When Pigs Fly

Achance Monday, December 1st at 5:25PM EST (link)

What would make anyone think he would do anything other than what his whole history says he would do. He is a leftist radical organizer who studied at the feet of communists and separatists. Tactically, he is a disciple of Saul Alinsky. Sorry, he ain’t gonna become some pro-business center right kinda guy. The First Hundred Days are going to be one Helluva ride.

BTW, he wants the uncertainty and the “crisis.” That way, anything can be justified to “save” us.

In Vino Veritas

 

Government coffers are dwindling; tax increases will be the only option.

phxg Monday, December 1st at 5:31PM EST (link)

Deep pit of despair, The US Economy. The US Economy, Deep pit of despair.

There is no amount of Prozac that will assuage that meeting.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. –Aristotle

 

being a cynic

jetsfan1970 Monday, December 1st at 5:34PM EST (link)

but i do not believe he wants the markets to level off or go up while george bush is in office. the lower the stock market goes and the unemployment rate rises it will make him look like a hero when everything stabilizes. if it goes up before he takes office the bar is raised and more is expected from him.

 

That explains it...

Jeff Woehrle Monday, December 1st at 5:38PM EST (link)

“…Obama’s way of handling tough situations is to set his jaw, furrow his brow, stare purposefully forward, say reassuring things, but on no account to make any clear statements of intent, or to actually do anything.”

In other words, exactly the same way he won the election.

Zactly. Social justice

redneck_hippie Monday, December 1st at 5:56PM EST (link)

and equality of outcome. What do those have to do with a thriving economy and prosperity for our nation?

“We must not lose our faculty to dare, especially in dark days.” - Churchill in March, 1942.

Remember NY-23.

 
 

Do We Want Him To Succeed?

DavidSage Monday, December 1st at 5:59PM EST (link)

I hear a lot of conservatives give advice about what Obama can do to fix the economy, but something I myself question is, “Do we as conservatives want him to succeed?”

I know the “proper” answer for conservatives who are always above the fray is, “Of course we want our new President to do a good job for our beloved country” but we should remember something.

If Obama does institute some common sense “non-leftist” economic policies, and the economy comes roaring back in the next few years, the Republican Party will be on life support for a generation like it was after Herbert Hoover.

Personally, for the long run, I’m almost of a mindset that we should just give the Democrats enough rope to hang themselves with.

The Democrats run EVERYTHING right now. If things are substantially better in the next 2-4 years, our Republican Party is going to be in the wilderness for a long time. Voters will remember how bad it was when the Republicans ran everything for essentially 8 years. If the Democrats are given the reigns, and everything is turned around, our movement is going to be stalled for a long time.

Allow me to be selfish and cynical. The best thing that could happen long-term to our movement and our Party is if Obama and the Democrats screw up really bad by implementing the liberal economic policies they campaigned on. It will hurt in the short term, but it would be a dose of good medicine for the American people.

In the same way it took a Jimmy Carter to give us a Ronald Reagan, if we ever want the American people to give conservatism a shot again, Obama needs to fail.

 

Threadjack

Alberta Monday, December 1st at 6:24PM EST (link)

I was looking for an open thread but this is somewhat talking taxes so im going to jack it.

Oh, yeah, not that I count, but I liked your ideas. I think your 100% right on the money about Obamas pussyfooted leadership and its effects on the market. However, I know youve been market watching. 8000 appears to be at least a temporary bottom. A trading bottom, at the least. Almost like clockwork the Dow gets down to around or a little below 8000, the next day it goes up, the next day it goes down to 8000 again, the next day it goes up…

Although If you think hes not going to kill us with new regulation, brother, I gotta get what your smoking.

Anyways on to the threadjack
How about the GOP take a leadership position and advocate some real change.
1. 0% cap gains (Kudlow called these ‘Necrophelia on the economy’ and Im just in love with that langauge.
2. No payroll taxes. I repeat. No payroll taxes.
3. No consumption taxes.
4. 15% flat tax across the board. End to progressive taxes. I make a dollar, I pay 15%. I make one billion dollars, I pay 15%. The number will be higher (or lower) than 15% because the state will want money too, so whatever the states flat tax plus the federal flat tax would be the #.

Yes, Im aware these measures will take money away from the government. Thats the point. If someone doesnt want to exercise the weight off, you starve them. If our politicians are not capable of restraining government spending, we should starve them.

BTW, if anyone is still reading this, I gotta question. If China devalues its currency wouldnt this strengthen the dollar? Isnt that inflationary? Isnt that what we want if we fear deflation?

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln

Yeah, well...

Taniwha Monday, December 1st at 6:31PM EST (link)

Let me simply say this about that:

If Obama succeeds, and the economy comes roaring back because he institutes the kind of good, ‘non-leftist’ market based policies that the GOP ought have been instituting themselves, his success will have been fairly bought, and I will do nothing but applaud.

Thing is, a) he won’t, because it wouldn’t create the kind of America he wants, b) in any case, his own people would eat him alive for it, and c) the success of such a plan would itself just prove to a whole new generation that the kind of market based solutions real conservatives have always called for really ARE the way to go.

If he does that, good for all of us. If not, his failure, and how he achieves it, will be there for all to see. And even if he gets the credit for succeeding on those terms, would it really be all that bad for the Democrat party to have come around to our way of seeing it economically?

I say we should only BE so lucky. But I don’t think we will.

————————

You stole my response

Next93 Monday, December 1st at 6:31PM EST (link)

I was going to say that if Obama made that statement, the next phrase out of his mouth would be “watch out for that flying pig!”.

Constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government:
It’s not just the law, it’s a good idea!

I'm not sure it didn't work (nt)

Neil Stevens Monday, December 1st at 6:31PM EST (link)

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

I love America more than I hate the left (nt)

Neil Stevens Monday, December 1st at 6:32PM EST (link)

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

Don't you mean...

Next93 Monday, December 1st at 6:34PM EST (link)

Don’t you mean:

“People will remember how bad things where in the last 6 months at the end of 8 years of prosperity when Republicans ran essentially everything”?

Constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government:
It’s not just the law, it’s a good idea!

Don't you mean...

Next93 Monday, December 1st at 6:37PM EST (link)

Don’t you mean:

“People will remember how bad things where in the last 6 months at the end of 8 years of prosperity when Republicans ran essentially everything”?

Constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government:
It’s not just the law, it’s a good idea!

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

What can Obama do to calm market?

Greg Monday, December 1st at 6:47PM EST (link)

How about taking back his victory speech and refusing to take office on Jan. 20th.

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” — Chesterton

"just enough rope"

Ginger Cleary Monday, December 1st at 6:53PM EST (link)

In theory I agree with you… and I have no doubt that his economic “plan” will do just that.

However, there ARE things the Conservatives absolutely MUST not give on. One of those things is “card check”. The other is Holder for AG.

If the Dems want them bad enough let THEM pass those things with NO help from Republicans.

Ginger Cleary - Rome, GA
http://www.rihadin.com
Democracy seeks the will of the majority while liberty seeks the protection
of the majority.

Did anybody see Paulson on t.v.?

Alberta Monday, December 1st at 6:54PM EST (link)

I was very amused because they had Paulson on TV and in a PiP box in the corner they had the Dow numbers.

What was amusing is that the numbers kept going down as Paulson kept speaking.

Im not saying, Im just saying…

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln

 
 
 

Well blackhedd ...

John Steele Monday, December 1st at 7:00PM EST (link)

… he lied for two years of the campaign, so I suppose he lie some more as you suggest.

The man intends to remake America in the image of his Marxist teachers and friends.

John - Miami
KJ4NSE
Member NRA | GOA | SAF | ARRL
———-
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

I have to live in this country.

Moe Lane Monday, December 1st at 7:11PM EST (link)

So until I can get a Republican in the White House, I’ll settle for breaking a Democrat to our will on economic policy.

 
 

Asking Him to

redneck_hippie Monday, December 1st at 7:16PM EST (link)

calm the financial markets? Hope. Fundamental Change. I used to think all that was a clever(?) distillation of the liberal mindset. In hindsight, it’s merely His inanity masking His gross ignorance. We shall now get to find out what would happen if Rahm Immanuel were in charge of America. Or something like that.

“We must not lose our faculty to dare, especially in dark days.” - Churchill in March, 1942.

Remember NY-23.

 

Seems odd to me

Scope Monday, December 1st at 7:23PM EST (link)

that on the day that Obama has named his choices for Foreign Policy, Gates, Clinton and Jones that the market would close down more than 600 points. I may be wrong in my thinking but, to name gates, who favored the surge, has really PO’d alot of his supporters. In light of the Mumbai terror attacks, he seems still to favor the old Clinton tactic of ignore the situation, and maybe it will go away. Or, maybe he believes that brushing it all under the carpet as B. Clinton did will appease his supporters. Today’s announcement to me caused alot of uncertainty as many must believe that the US is now in a world of hurt, and an open invitation to attack.

Ding! Ding! Ding! You ring the bell.

kowalski Monday, December 1st at 7:33PM EST (link)

Barack Obama is going to do almost nothing Blackhedd from Redstate asks and in fact my guess is that he enjoys the turmoil in financial markets. In the first place, they’re what landed him the Presidency, and in the second, they are creating the impetus for even bigger government.

He doesn’t want that to stop, and he’s not going to do much to stop it.

The balance of power in the economy has decisively shifted from New York City to Washington and our President Elect wants to keep it that way. My sincere guess is that he will do nothing substantive that Blackhedd recommends simply because it’s not what he was elected to do. He doesn’t want to strengthen Capitalism, he wants to weaken it.

Playing A Losing Hand

DavidSage Monday, December 1st at 7:47PM EST (link)

I would like to believe that if Obama enacted pro-market economic policies, and the the economy bounced back, it would vindicate what we’ve been saying all along. But since when is politics ever fair? We know this is going to be spun.

Republicans=bad for economy, Democrats=good for economy. You’re average swing voter is not going to be able to tell you why this is true, just that it is.

Every intelligent economist knows (if they’re being truthful) that Bush’s conservative economic programs like cutting income and capital gains taxes, in addition to some modest deregulation had absolutely nothing to do with the current financial crisis we’re in. But ask your average voter, and they’ll tell you Bush’s economic policies are completely to blame for our current situation. It’s the same as it was during the Great Depression.

Free-market capitalism wasn’t to blame for the Great Depression, but that’s not how voters felt. Everyone seemed to forget how prosperous the 1920’s were, just like they’ve forgotten that the last 8 years were actually pretty good economically.

Once things got better under the Democrats, voters concluded that Democrats were better stewards of the economy and voters were then receptive to liberal, big government solutions.

That’s why we still have a large amount of elderly voters that are still die-hard Democrats, simply because they remember what life was like when Herbert Hoover was President, and that things got better when FDR became President. That was 70 years ago.

I would rather have a few rough years economically now (like the late 1970’s under Jimmy Carter) with Reagan-type conservatism making a comeback, than 30 years of socialist Democrats completely running this country, like they were after Herbert Hoover. I happen to think that if the Democrats become a permanent majority in America, we’re screwed.

So yes, I want Obama to fail, even if it hurts our country economically in the short term. I absolutely wouldn’t want a military catastrophe on his watch just for the benefit our party, but I feel a few years of economic stagnation is a worthwhile trade.

I’m glad Jimmy Carter was an absolute failure. Think what would have happened had he been successful after Nixon as post-Watergate President, and the economy was doing well? Can you honestly say that you would have preferred Carter to have a good economic cycle under his belt for the good of the nation, as opposed to having a Ronald Reagan come in and actually make this country great again? The conservative movement started by Barry Goldwater would have died off completely.

If the economy does well under Obama, go ahead and count on a 40 state landslide for him in 2012, similar to what Reagan had in 1984. You can also expect a 60 plus seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority, along with a 40-50 seat Democrat majority in the House. Democrats will also dominate Governorships and State Legislatures.

I guess I’m just not as patriotic as some here, I don’t think it would be good for America for Obama to succeed. Sometimes failure for this country can be a good thing.

 
 
 

No Obama, don't make that speech

Scope Monday, December 1st at 7:47PM EST (link)

I want nothing more than for this man to fail. I live very simply, I don’t need alot. I can survive very well on my own frugal practices. I want him to do everything wrong from not holding to his promises of giving money to the poor at the expense of the rich, to implementing his “America will be the leader on Global Warming, to his promise of bankrupting the coal industry. I don’t believe that his 20,000 member Obama Army will be effective against the millions that will surely rebel against his administration, hopefully sooner rather than later. The dumb will wake up soon enough.

Is there anything, at all, that would?

birdmojo Monday, December 1st at 8:35PM EST (link)

Convince you, I mean.

Is there any measurable thing out there that you would accept as a reason to say “okay it didn’t work” as opposed to “but you don’t know that we wouldn’t be living in a Mad Max world if we didn’t pass the bailout!”?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

Yep, I told those Obama supporters what would happen

izoneguy Monday, December 1st at 8:37PM EST (link)

I hate it when I am right on the bad stuff.
Anyone with any economic knowledge (small business owner)
could see Obama’s beliefs were not based on capitalistic theory. He has been raised as a communist. He believes in the nanny state. He believes that profit is evil and that the “wealth must be spread around”. Pretty soon there will not be any wealth to spread around. Taxes will only kill the golden goose.
All the business people I know are pulling back and have been since September. Once the leftys supporters get a hard dose of reality then hopefully (there is the hope Obama promised)
the economic ship can stop leaking and we can start sailing again. The first thing America needs to do is to drill for oil to make money. When you have something you can produce and sell you do that first.

“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson

There's no way to be sure either way

Neil Stevens Monday, December 1st at 8:41PM EST (link)

The bailout’s job was to prevent 1929. We didn’t have a 1929. The hard part is that 1929 wasn’t certain without the Paulson plan.

So we can’t prove it worked and we can’t prove it didn’t.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

 
 
 
 

Cap Gains and Windfall Profits

Vladimir Monday, December 1st at 8:41PM EST (link)

Both have become moot since Sept 1.

There are no longer capital gains or windfall profits to tax.

He could do exactly as you say, become a big tax-cutter, at a cost to the treasury of exactly $0.00.

There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Well, look at it this way, DavidSage:

Moe Lane Monday, December 1st at 8:44PM EST (link)

A knock-down, drag-out war between the executive and legislative branches in 2009 would be very, very helpful for us. And I’m pretty sure that McConnell’s ready to play Let’s You And Him Fight in the Senate.

"proof"

birdmojo Monday, December 1st at 8:51PM EST (link)

Without getting all epistemological and discussing the theory of knowledge and the limits of our sight, could we discuss whether there is reason to believe that taking tax dollars from productive people/companies (as well as printing money at a rate that could well devalue the money held by everyone) to companies proven to have poor judgment rather could, in theory, be a worse choice than letting them be sold for pennies on the dollar to new, fresh companies that have not yet demonstrated terminal levels of misjudgment (as well as discussion of the unintended consequences including moral hazard, adverse selection, and all sorts of economic terms)?

Or is there no way to know, either way since I can’t prove that I wouldn’t be fighting with hoboes over the leftovers that might be found in the dumpster behind the recently-closed McDonald’s in the hopes of finding something that might give me and my family nutrients for another day in the alternate universe where the bailout that Congress voted through didn’t pass?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

Here's the deal

Jack_Savage Monday, December 1st at 8:57PM EST (link)

America rejected Republicans because they were acting like Democrats. Why have a cheap imitation when you can elect the real thing?

If Obama succeeds, it will be because he governs like a conservative. Voters will then reject Democrats because they were acting like Republicans (the rejection will be by Democrats, in great measure). Who needs a cheap imitation when you can elect the real thing?

I expect four years of excuses and low expectations, with a stagnant economy and a standard line being “well, when we looked at what we inherited..”. I also expect an international incident in the next 18 months that will be Obama’s Katrina.

How about the fact that the "core" of the Paulson plan was never enacted and was essentially renounced by Paulson

JSobieski Monday, December 1st at 9:03PM EST (link)

Two months ago buying up the paper was essential.

Now, buying preferred stock is clearly the way to go.

Can we not state that the buying of bad paper was in fact not necessary to prevent 1929?

Bad paper was not purchased.
No 1929.


Birdmojo, the problem was that the bailout did not focus more narrowly on the children

JSobieski Monday, December 1st at 9:03PM EST (link)

Doesn't matter. The point was psychology. (nt)

Neil Stevens Monday, December 1st at 9:05PM EST (link)

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

Amen! If Obama can keep Reid/Polosi from sinking the country, he is more capable than we give him credit for

JSobieski Monday, December 1st at 9:07PM EST (link)

Rahm Emanuel said just as much

scottbomb Monday, December 1st at 9:17PM EST (link)

As Obama’s own Chief of Staff recently quipped,

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

  1. Why would Obama say something NOW that would cause a rally under President Bush’s watch? (He’s still president, ya know.) Obama wants to come into Washington blaming Bush for the recession. No recession, no savior.

  2. Not raising taxes would go against his campaign promises. He promised to raise taxes, not lower them. To flip on that promise now just gives us more ammo. to use against him in 2012. Sure, we could point out how he let the economy burn, but he can just blame it on Bush and the 60 million lemmings who voted for him this year will buy it.

  3. Obama is either a Roosevelt or a Lenin wannabe. He needs a crisis and the worse, the better. He needs a desperate America. Nothing would help his political aspriations more than to have us sink into another depression. Just ask Rahm!

Mark my words, we’re screwed.

http://www.HowObamaGotElected.com

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

It's Scary How Correctly Some Conservatives Predicted This Situation

Nelsen Monday, December 1st at 9:53PM EST (link)

Obama Made 512 Promises and Every Single One is Tracked At:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Create Your Own Obama Speech:
http://www.atom.com/spotlights/inauguration_speech_generator/

 

Got to laugh.

unseennc Monday, December 1st at 9:58PM EST (link)

Market underpriced? All the talking heads are saying the same thing. Bottom is in sight. Market is underpriced. And then the market makes a new low.

Newsflash. The nasdaq lost 80% in 2001. The period between 1929 and 1932 saw a loss of 90% for the DOW.

I remember in 2001, 2002 the same talking heads saying the market was underpriced and would recover. They kept saying it all the way down. I’m sure they were saying the same thing in 1929. 1930, 1931 and 1932 as the DOW lost 90%.

Until I start to hear the talking heads scream to get out of the market. That there is no reason to invest, that we will not see a bottom for 2 to 4 years from now then and only then will I invest.

We will test the 7,200 level again by Jan 21st. I believe we will bust thru it.

I see DOw 1500 by 2012. There is no way the gov can spend its way out of this problem.

Socialism and capitalism do not mix.

 

I'd eat my hat

JakePrime Monday, December 1st at 9:58PM EST (link)

We can only hope that he’ll change his tune

I hope the people who were laughing at this guy in 2006 pay up on their bets.

Mord Monday, December 1st at 10:35PM EST (link)

He predicted everything that we are seeing today. Subprime collapse, credit freeze, the works, and everyone literally laughed and mocked him. I remember watching this guy and thinking he was a gloom-and-doomer, no way could our entire economy collapse the way he was predicting. Boy was I wrong. If I could afford to buy another hat, I would eat the one I currently own.

I hope he wasn’t entirely correct in his predictions or we may not have seen the bottom yet.

————————————–

“Republicans never win polls, they win elections,” - Rudy Giuliani

————————————–

 
 

Shorter, Markets Calming Speech:

Tbone Monday, December 1st at 10:46PM EST (link)

“I have just had all the Congressional Democrats shot.”

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I think that's grossly unfair.

mbecker908 Monday, December 1st at 11:02PM EST (link)

If he’s going to shoot Congressional Democrats, in the spirit of bipartisanship I think he should shoot Congressional Republicans as well.

Think of it as term limits.

CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

To an Extent Yes

buckeye Monday, December 1st at 11:03PM EST (link)

But even more so our burden is we don’t get to triangulate because it comes down to policy and the results policy creates. Freedom works and government doesn’t. So when Bill Clinton cuts capital gains taxes, accepts a balanced budget and signs welfare reform the policies lead to prosperity and he’s rewarded with votes. At the aggregate, he isn’t rejected for behaving like a Republican. But when we go with the same “have it both ways” strategy from the other direction we end up damaging the economy and society because that’s what left of center actions produce. Voters then reject us on results and for being frauds.

Delivering results will get people to forget you’re a fraud, but delivering poor results only compounds the disgust of being a fraud. The Dems have a built in advantage because stealing our policies produces positive results and allows them to work both sides of the street. When we do the same from the other direction, we do damage and people pay attention to our being frauds.

Perhaps Obama knows this too.

“Honor is self-esteem made visible in action.” - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

I'm Not Too Sure

buckeye Monday, December 1st at 11:19PM EST (link)

For a large portion of the Democrat Party their party is nothing more than organized crime with a flag on the wall, a protection racket. It’s all about power, wielding favors and retaining the ability to do just that. I recall months ago Obama saying something along the lines of loving the markets because they produce revenues for government which follows this strategy.

This camp really wants the dry cleaner to be there every month for the shakedown and resulting spreading of favors that get funded. They really don’t want to run the dry cleaner out of business, no money.

That’s the Chicago way but then again Obama also has his communist collectivist history so he may go the power through dependency rather than favors route. Time will tell, but those are their two roads to sustained power in the Democrat Party. Protecting people from the shakedowns sure as he(#)l isn’t one of them. That’s what the GOP is is *suppose to deliver.

“Honor is self-esteem made visible in action.” - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Exactly right...couldn't have said it better.

conservativemusician Monday, December 1st at 11:33PM EST (link)

I'm afraid you're right.

kchand Monday, December 1st at 11:36PM EST (link)

Even and empty suit has a coat hanger. This one, not even that.

——————–
Vista really sucks!

Ironic, isnt it?...

conservativemusician Tuesday, December 2nd at 12:39AM EST (link)

That for the last 8 years, it was the DEMS who hoped that we would screw up, who hoped for bad news…bad news in Iraq…bad news for the economy…blah blah blah. What was bad for the country was great for the Dems and vice versa. Now the shoe is on the other foot and we are the ones who are wanting THEM to fail through the enactment of their socialist policies. Yet if they do succeed in their plans for this country, there may be no true recovery in sight for generations to come.

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes, don’t you think?

Then how come all other potential plans were not open for discussion? If it was only psychology, why did the "debate" take the form of "this and only this (if done immediately) can save us from certain doom"?

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 12:50AM EST (link)

Are you saying that they knew what they were saying was meaningless tripe, and that they knew they just needed a plan?

If so, why not entertain alternatives that the market psychology seemed to want?


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

that's Obummer

finaljeopardy Tuesday, December 2nd at 12:54AM EST (link)

President-elect Obama’s way of handling tough situations is to set his jaw, furrow his brow, stare purposefully forward, say reassuring things, but on no account to make any clear statements of intent, or to actually do anything…

… and gesture with his hands in ways that make no sense.

Socialism!

finaljeopardy Tuesday, December 2nd at 12:58AM EST (link)

If McCain would have worked with the House Republicans instead of slowly, publicly and horrifically imploding, he might have won.

Paulson's DNA

finaljeopardy Tuesday, December 2nd at 1:02AM EST (link)

Nobody that stupid can be the Secretary of the Treasury. The financial crisis was the Dems’ October surprise.

"We are going to rule from the center."

finaljeopardy Tuesday, December 2nd at 1:37AM EST (link)

The center of WHAT?!! Michael Moore’s taint?

Big If

finaljeopardy Tuesday, December 2nd at 2:04AM EST (link)

Obama owes a lot of favors, and he is fine with that. His political career began when he took his first piece of candy from Frank Marshall Davis. He voted four times against BAIPA. There is no warm heart beating in his bosom where he would want to do right just to be liked even, let alone principle.

I am even crazy enough to think if his heart grew three sizes, and he decided to do the right thing, he would be assassinated.

I’m probably not alone, either. More people in this country see politics as a spectacle than a civic duty and a privilege.

I don't think the if is even possible--a lefty is a lefty is a lefty

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 2:29AM EST (link)

He won’t be able to resist, and he won’t be able to contain Congress


A Tale of Two Clinton Tax Periods

finaljeopardy Tuesday, December 2nd at 3:13AM EST (link)

The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, *began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. *The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.

*The Heritage Foundation remembers the first Clinton Period best. For some historical perspective.
*

During his campaign, Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.” After the election, he proceeded to raise taxes across-the-board.

Less than a month into his presidency, the Washington Post headlined, “Clinton Asks Middle Class to Pay Higher Taxes; President Issues `Call to Arms’ To Restore Economic Vitality.” After Clinton’s Jan. 14, 1993, news conference, the Post wrote that Clinton “complained that it was only the press, not voters, who considered that issue [tax cuts] important.”

At first, Clinton maintained that only those earning over $100,000 would pay more under his revised tax plan. But The Heritage Foundation noted it would hit far more broadly, raising taxes for individuals making $25,000 and couples making $32,000. The Los Angeles Times headline echoed that finding: “Clinton Threshold on Tax Bite Dips to $30,000 Incomes.”

The Boomers Won't Have It

finaljeopardy Tuesday, December 2nd at 3:20AM EST (link)
  1. No payroll taxes. I repeat. No payroll taxes.

“What about my Social Security?”

The debate among whom?

Neil Stevens Tuesday, December 2nd at 8:54AM EST (link)

I can only tell you what I see the situation to have been. I can’t argue for what nameless other people said. It’s irrelevant anyway.

The plan was what it was: a show of force to calm the markets and prevent a crash. It stands on its own merits, or it doesn’t. What some people said about it was irrelevant.

I’m reminded of what the left says about Iraq. If anything anyone said about it was false, they shriek “Bush lied!” They say that even if Bush said no such thing.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

I absolutely agree

Jack_Savage Tuesday, December 2nd at 9:20AM EST (link)

So when Bill Clinton cuts capital gains taxes, accepts a balanced budget and signs welfare reform the policies lead to prosperity and he’s rewarded with votes. At the aggregate, he isn’t rejected for behaving like a Republican.

Well put. Looks like there is only one thing we can do, and we should begin now.

This is just not true.

itrytobenice Tuesday, December 2nd at 9:43AM EST (link)

And I’ve heard a million talking heads say the same thing.

I don’t have stats, and wish that I did, but I have paid capital gains taxes a dozen times in my life, but never on stock.

Every business asset we have ever owned is depreciable, and when they are sold, there is typically a capital gain. As long as there are businesses buying equipment, there will be capital gains.

And I’ll tell you something else, the impending expiration of the Bush tax cuts has already affected capital purchases. The decision as to whether or not to invest in more {insert capital product here} is affected in part by the expected tax consequences. Right now, those consequences are uncertain, hence purchases are postponed until that uncertainty is resolved.

The problem with America is stupidity. I’m not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don’t we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Why don't we bypass a light-year's worth of red tape and just re-join the UK?

macbigot Tuesday, December 2nd at 10:33AM EST (link)

Looks like all the wiggling we did to get away from the British way of doing business was nothing more than a failed experiment.

Maybe Obama can/will hand over the keys to Parliament and we can get on with the ruddy business of living for the Queen, et al, instead of being all selfish and stuff about keeping our own money.

You get what you vote for; not what you’re promised.

Psychology

birdmojo Tuesday, December 2nd at 10:34AM EST (link)

Did the psychological changes among the electorate that told them that, on fiscally conservative issues, the parties were indistinguishable help or hinder the Republican Party?

Is there just no way to know?

Is there just no way to know if McCain’s suspension of his campaign in order to support the psychological bailout resulted in fiscal conservatives staying home?

Is there just no way to know whether low-information voters who consider themselves fiscally conservative but who are really venially populist reacted to the bailout as Republicans shoveling money to their rich friends and thus they decided that they wanted to vote for the guy who promised to lower the taxes of the middle class (folks making less than even half of $250,000, or $200,000, or even $150,000… more of them out there than you might think) at the expense of the rich fellers getting bailouts?

Is there just no way to know if the increases in the House or Senate for the Democratic Party had anything to do with the abandonment of Fiscally Conservative principle?

Because, let’s face it, if the country would be a smoking crater right now where the living envied the dead without the bailout, the Republican act of supporting the bailout even though it cost them more seats than they’d have otherwise and more electoral votes than they’d have otherwise…

Well, I’m downright moved to tears at their selflessness and martyrdom and how their sacrificial acts allow me to continue living a life without having to fistfight hoboes for each meal.

If nothing else, I can’t prove that their acts didn’t.

There’s just no way to know.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

Well that'll teach me

Neil Stevens Tuesday, December 2nd at 10:40AM EST (link)

Next time I want to reply to you in good faith, I’ll remember that you’ll just serve up more of your bitter, emotionally charged sarcasm.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

I don't think that is a fair assesment Neil....

Attack Mode Tuesday, December 2nd at 10:51AM EST (link)

Bird made valid points despite his method of conveying them. For you to turn around and devalue his comments as emotional is a complete cop out.

“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.

"You can't prove one way or the other"

birdmojo Tuesday, December 2nd at 11:20AM EST (link)

Is this an argument you’d accept for whether Iraq made us less secure?

I mean, you can’t PROVE that going to War in Iraq made us more secure.

Is this an argument you’d accept for whether abortion benefits society as a whole?

You can’t PROVE we’d have less crime and higher quality of life had Roe v. Wade been remanded back down rather than decided by the Supreme Court.

The arguments that rely on “you can’t prove that the alternate universe in which the butterfly in Brazil flapped its wings would be a better one” while surely offered in good faith cannot be seen as truly a good faith response to the whole “Fiscal Conservative doctrine says that there is no such thing as ‘too big to fail’ in Capitalism” argument… which, you see in the examples about Iraq and Abortion.

While it’s true that you cannot prove that we’d have more/less crime in a world without Roe v. Wade, the argument isn’t about the quality of the alternate universe.

It’s about whether Principles are a suicide pact.

If Principles are nothing more than something that can be thrown away when someone else promises disaster (hey, these circumstances are extraordinary!), you’ll find the party that represents you to be considered untrustworthy.

Don’t take my word for it.

But, then again, it’s not like I can prove that the bailout was the only thing keeping Obama from 80% majorities in the House/Senate and better election numbers than Reagan in ‘84.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

Dude. We are The Children.

birdmojo Tuesday, December 2nd at 2:07PM EST (link)

Whenever the government says “we need to do this for The Children”, they’re talking about Us. Me. You.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

So policy is about feelings?

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 2:45PM EST (link)

A Republican administration went to the American people and said essentially “we need to enact a plan by which the Treasury department buys up mortgage-backed securities. If we do not do this IMMEDIATELY, the economy will tank.” There were many prominent people who initial proposed alternative approaches. Those folks include Forbes, Gingrich, Kudlow, and others.

The plan was ultimately abandoned in total. The money was used to buy stocks, not assets, for reasons of complexity and administration.

My point is that we did need to take government action. However, the government essentially refused to entertain any discussion/debate about what that action should be. Those same people in the government have since turned their back on their own plan.

The American people got snookered with a syllogism:

(1) We need to do something
(2) The something we need to do is X

(1) was undoubtedly true. (2) was very much refutable and debatable.

You say it had a desired psychological impact. I say virtually any approach can have a positive psychological impact.

We start passing policy for psychological impact (how it makes us feel), we should all become democrats and be done with it.


You are not very compassionate

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 2:48PM EST (link)

People out there are hurting. Lots of pain out there. People who insist on sipping their chardonays while others suffer should refrain from voting.

Children . . . are the future.

Obama is going to clean all of this up.


*This* policy was about feelings

Neil Stevens Tuesday, December 2nd at 2:48PM EST (link)

We were faced with the threat of an emotionally driven collapse of American (and maybe world) markets, potentially destroying trillions of dollars worth of wealth and driving our economy into a very deep hole.

Paulson needed to kiss it and make it better. Yeah, investors are just that panicky and irrational when they get in groups. Heck, humans are panicky and irrational when they get in groups.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

And about whether his plan was the right one

Neil Stevens Tuesday, December 2nd at 2:50PM EST (link)

Did you have a plan that would have pacified investors and could pass the Pelosi/Reid Congress? Did anyone?

The only counterproposal was one I saw from the RSC that had tax cuts. It would never have passed.

And the bill had to pass to have an effect. And it had to pass quickly to minimize the risk of going off the cliff.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

There were several plans out there

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 2:58PM EST (link)

Admittedly none of them were from within the government. The pages of the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, and the business shows were full of alternative ideas.

Forbes, Gingrich, and Kudlow each wrote about their ideas.

For example, each suggested that the FDIC do certain things that the FDIC did outside the scope of the Paulson bill. Increasing FDIC insurance coverage was initially suggested by Kudlow. Scrapping the mark-to-market rule was proposed by Forbes the next day after the Paulson announcement.

Our leaders ran around like chickens without heads. Of all the political developments in my adult life time, none was worse explained, communicated, and debated than the TARP.

TARP made me question the viability of a representative republic.

TARP was an immediate “necessity” but now, it is no longer necessary if you take Paulson at his word. The core of the plan will no longer be implemented even though it was originally argued to be indispensible.

If the plan was to have lots of money to throw around and use in a flexible manner to deal with the problem, then Paulson/Bush should have said that.

So either they lied, or were grossly overestimating their own foresight in addressing the problem. Either way, its a failure of leadership in a fundamental way.


I'm just glad I don't have to pay rent anymore.

birdmojo Tuesday, December 2nd at 3:08PM EST (link)

Or buy gas, for that matter.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

OK I think that settles it

Neil Stevens Tuesday, December 2nd at 3:13PM EST (link)

“TARP made me question the viability of a representative republic.”

Yeah, OK.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

I agree with his statement more than I agree with the blind acceptance that you appear to be pushing...n/t

Attack Mode Tuesday, December 2nd at 3:23PM EST (link)

n/t

“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.

Investors have been pacified?

zuiko Tuesday, December 2nd at 3:23PM EST (link)

I don’t see much difference in market conditions between now, during the bailout, and before the bailout. The market dropped by over 4% just yesterday. And that’s with potentially over a trillion and a half dollars already on the table between the $850bln welfare check that has already gone out and the next huge welfare check the Dems have been talking about passing on 1/20 in celebration of the socialist utopia that has finally arrived here in the US.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

At this point

zuiko Tuesday, December 2nd at 3:28PM EST (link)

I’m not sure how much worse The One can do compared with the current administration. If the Soviet Union was still around, I’d suspect Paulson was on their payroll. W has presided over the biggest advance of socialism in the US since FDR. What is Obama going to do to top that? More of the same is what I expect.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Heh

Neil Stevens Tuesday, December 2nd at 4:30PM EST (link)

It’s a reasonable position to take, in itself.

But to act like suddenly now, this bill is so horrible that it’s reason to question our system of government, I think is laughable.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

Neil...I can't disagree with you there...

Attack Mode Tuesday, December 2nd at 4:46PM EST (link)

But I think it is more a matter of hitting a personal tipping point. My agreement is based on the whole. So by itself the TARP is no worse than the Great Society or the New Deal…but when we keep doing those and no longer stand up and object and force those in power to listen..well then it does force one to ask the question as to whether the Representative Republic can survive…or if it even did survive long after it was instituted.

“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.

It was the WORST public debate on a significant issue that I have seen in the US since I started following the news in 1979

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 5:43PM EST (link)

Absolutely terrible coverage in the media. As substance free and hysterical as possible.

So yes, it did cause me to doubt self governance as a concept more than anything else I have seen.


Not the bill, the DEBATE on the bill

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 5:46PM EST (link)

The public discussion of the Paulson plan was PATHETIC. More so than the bill itself, the fact that mere days earlier, people were talking about cutting earmarks and then whamo—-virtually substance-free discussion of a $700B plan?


The debate on TARP was WORSE then the public debate on the New Deal

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 5:52PM EST (link)

The New Deal wasn’t passed in a week on the basis that failure to do so would destroy the US economy.

During the New Deal, parts were challenged in court. There was a lot of public debate. FDR modified parts of his plans to accommodate objections.

The Paulson Plan could have been sold as we need to have flexibility and a big checkbook. It wasn’t.

Instead, it was sold as “other plans aren’t feasible” (this conclusion is rendered false by those implementing TARP) and “this MUST be done now” (how many mortgage-based securities has the government purchased).

So yes, this is in my view self-governance at its most vulnerable. The Founding Fathers understood that an informed and grounded public and a challenging and curious media were required for self governance.

The media coverage was incredibly shallow, as was the public debate.

So yes, for those who occassionally think about the big picture, the quality of the debate did make me think (for a moment) that self-governance was in jeopardy over the long haul.


You can't prove that they haven't been.

birdmojo Tuesday, December 2nd at 5:56PM EST (link)

How much worse would they be without the bailout?

You can’t prove that they would be better.

And as for the question of “well, do you think that the investors don’t know what the bailout will look like in 2 weeks or 2 months because Paulsen has changed his mind so many times that he is doing more to create (psychological) uncertainty than to assuage it?”, well… the answer is we don’t know and you can’t prove anything.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

Irrationality in the market...

birdmojo Tuesday, December 2nd at 7:29PM EST (link)

Would be best fixed by saying something to the effect of “those rules we’ve always had? They’re still standing.”

Because if you want investors to REALLY panic, the best way to do that is to say “okay, these circumstances are extraordinary and we are going to change the rules.” And have this followed a few weeks later by “Remember that old rule change? Forget them, we’re changing the rules again.”

Let me ask you a rational question. Let’s say that you are debating between putting a small windfall of money into either the stock market or into your mattress. You know that your mattress will have the exact same amount of money you put into it today in two months and you know exactly what the rules are.

You don’t know what the rules will be for the stock market in 2 months. You don’t know that those rules, whatever they are, will be the same rules as in 4 months. And you don’t know that THOSE rules, whatever they are, will be the same rules as in 12.

Where are you more likely to put your money?

Is Paulsen’s plan decreasing irrationality or increasing it?

Would passing no plan at all (that is to say, keeping the same rules we’ve had in place for a good long while) have decreased irrationality or increased it?

There’s no way to “prove” the answers I’ve reached… but I’m pretty sure that the fact that I can’t “prove” them doesn’t invalidate the thought process in reaching them.

Certainly not to the point where “you can’t prove otherwise” is a particularly strong argument in why Paulsen’s plan was better (no matter how much “good faith” lies behind it).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

Is the Paulson plan to be unpredictable?

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 7:38PM EST (link)

To have financial decisions be based on cocktail gossip and rumors regarding the next move by Treasury?

I am amazed that more conservatives aren’t really really angry about the “one and only plan to save us all from certain doom”


Bush isn't running in November.

birdmojo Tuesday, December 2nd at 7:40PM EST (link)

Quit complaining about him.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire

It is far worse in hindsight because

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 7:42PM EST (link)

Paulson has backed off his original plan for the $700B. You have to admit, that such a data point does make the whole thing stink even worse.

There were people at the time suggesting that the FDIC pump liquidity into the system, and that monetary policy could be used without a fiscal component.

Those people were so sufficiently ignored at the time, that nobody remembers they even existed.

Paulson is an embarassment at best. At worst, he screwed up our country in more ways than one.


LOL time to move on to important things like rebuilding the party

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 7:43PM EST (link)

Nothing to look at over here.

Now, where is that list of pork projects that needs to be scrutinized?


Tru Dat

Alberta Tuesday, December 2nd at 8:17PM EST (link)

I dont understand why we dont hang Paulson.

What I really dont understand is why he didnt (doesnt) go to the bankers and tell them that he owns them now, and if they dont start lending, they will go bankrupt, because he’ll pull his stake.

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Keep your mouth shut

Redman_Blueworld Tuesday, December 2nd at 8:43PM EST (link)

Obama is the leader of the liberal illuminati left-wing Democrats. Anything that he does say will only worsen this economic state. He is dead set on making sure that this nation is going to be “saved” from the economic crisis, but not until he gets into office,s o that he can take complete credit for absolutely everything and perpetuate his reign.

I tried explaining to a gas station attendant that Obama won, but the guy insisted that I pay anyway

JSobieski Tuesday, December 2nd at 10:58PM EST (link)

I guess the free stuff doesn’t fully kick in until January.


Of course

zuiko Wednesday, December 3rd at 4:36PM EST (link)

How much worse would poverty be without the war on poverty? How much worse would the depression have been without the new deal? How much worse would education be without the federal power grab?

This is always the refuge used to justify governmental action where no action is warranted. I don’t believe these bailouts are helpful in the least. I think they are counterproductive and will simply drag things out, the same way the new deal dragged out the depression until the entire world went to war and reset the world economy. Hopefully it won’t take that much to undo the damage being done today.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

 
 
 

Leave a Comment

 

Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.