Showing posts with label subprime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subprime. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Monday, December 1, 2008
We're all Austrians now
Peter Schiff, Ron Paul's economic advisor, was ridiculed in 2006-2007 for his predictions of a recession and massive decline in stock values by a financial media which is mostly filled with followers of the Keynesian school of economics who tout the current model of central banking control of the economy. Now that his predictions of a massive bust have borne true, the financial media and its Keynesian acolytes have been forced to bow down to the wisdom of the Austrian economic philosophy.
Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007
Here is Schiff again, in November 2008, being treated with the veneration that his prescience has earned him:
Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007
Here is Schiff again, in November 2008, being treated with the veneration that his prescience has earned him:
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Obama shows glimmer of true leadership
The situation in the halls of political power has been dire since 1913, the year the federal reserve act and the federal income tax were enacted. Since then, the size of government has steadily increased, and politicians have increasingly relied on interventionist big government rhetoric to buy votes.
Obama, as a Democrat -who have traditionally been greater advocates of big government than Republicans- has taken big government political positions that are a sad example of the kind that have done so much to harm America.
In a recent speech though, I noticed a glimmer of wisdom -a glimmer of wisdom which ignited a hope in me that maybe, just maybe, his eyes may open to the truth of what ails the economy, and he will undergo a political metamorphosis to become a defender of limited government ideals. The speech where I saw this potential was the one he made about the mortgage crisis, and the changes he thinks are needed:
He repeated many common big government positions, such as advocating another federal stimulus package, bailing out home owners who are facing mortgage problems and touting the importance of giving more federal support for state health and education programs, etc, but he also touched on the problem of the investors of semi-privatized institutions like Fanny Mae socializing the risk of their business ventures by relying on government bail-outs when things go sour.
Criticizing the big Wall Street investors is a positive step, and maybe, just maybe, it's an indication that he has the courage to stand up to a corporate-political establishment that uses big government programs as a private piggy bank, and that he will see that the only way to fight for the true interests of America and stop this kind of opportunistic exploitation of public funds by powerful interests is by cutting back on these big government programs.
His tone too gave me hope that perhaps he was coming around to seeing the truth. It was somber, as if it was donning on him that there was an inherent contradiction between his advocacy for bailing out homeowners and his criticism of bailing out investors of semi-privatized companies like Fanny Mae.
I'm probably being way too optimistic, but I welcome any move towards sobriety among the political leadership.
Obama, as a Democrat -who have traditionally been greater advocates of big government than Republicans- has taken big government political positions that are a sad example of the kind that have done so much to harm America.
In a recent speech though, I noticed a glimmer of wisdom -a glimmer of wisdom which ignited a hope in me that maybe, just maybe, his eyes may open to the truth of what ails the economy, and he will undergo a political metamorphosis to become a defender of limited government ideals. The speech where I saw this potential was the one he made about the mortgage crisis, and the changes he thinks are needed:
He repeated many common big government positions, such as advocating another federal stimulus package, bailing out home owners who are facing mortgage problems and touting the importance of giving more federal support for state health and education programs, etc, but he also touched on the problem of the investors of semi-privatized institutions like Fanny Mae socializing the risk of their business ventures by relying on government bail-outs when things go sour.
Criticizing the big Wall Street investors is a positive step, and maybe, just maybe, it's an indication that he has the courage to stand up to a corporate-political establishment that uses big government programs as a private piggy bank, and that he will see that the only way to fight for the true interests of America and stop this kind of opportunistic exploitation of public funds by powerful interests is by cutting back on these big government programs.
His tone too gave me hope that perhaps he was coming around to seeing the truth. It was somber, as if it was donning on him that there was an inherent contradiction between his advocacy for bailing out homeowners and his criticism of bailing out investors of semi-privatized companies like Fanny Mae.
I'm probably being way too optimistic, but I welcome any move towards sobriety among the political leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)