America is in precarious position

America's Constitution is at risk. At least the Supreme Court is still arguing constitutional issues, but the document has been violated so many times through the years that one can argue it no longer guarantees limits on government power. There's been international pressure for America to join the rest of the world to establish a new order of power which would threaten our sovereignty. Mark Mazower, in his book, Governing the World, the History of an Idea, writes about the historical movement toward world governance. The idea advances forward, then backwards, then forward, but the overall effort appears to progress toward world governance.

During the Bush presidency, the US was criticized for not cooperating with the UN after 9/11, so Obama has made it a point to get the US back on track, embracing R2P, leading from behind, so to speak, downplaying America's unique position in the world, questioning Constitutional limits and making sure, or at least giving the impression, that our foreign interventions are in concert with other nations.

Although no President would actively campaign for the US to sacrifice its sovereignty for the good of the international community determined by an internation insititution, it's easy to see that global efforts are under way to help advance developing countries as western nations are suffering economically. Is a very dangerous bubble forming in Asian nations? As the US drifts further and further from sound economic practices, the last bastion of free market principles is crumbling. Austrian economists say this is disastrous, and I agree with them. The world's central bankers can't plan the global economy without dire unintended consequences. This type of hubris has caused tragic loss and despair for as long a world governance has been contemplated.

America must get back to free market basics, as trite as that sounds. It's less trite and more helpful than universal Keynesianism. 

Up with Chris Hayes 8/19/2012 -- Paul Ryan the Hypocrite

Although Chris Hayes could go back and find quotes from Barack Obama or Joe Biden or a great number of Democrats which contradict their current positions, Hayes chooses only to reveal Republican hypocrisy, especially Paul Ryan's hypocrisy on Keynesianism. It's a confused argument that goes something like this -- Ryan is really a believer in Keynesian principles, but if he and Romney get elected they will destroy Keynesian stimulus policies, thus hurt the most vulnerable in society who are now hurting severely under the policies of Barack Obama. Hayes had the author of the New New Deal on, Michael Grunwald, to make the claim that Obama has talked like a moderate but has achieved like a Super Progressive.

All of this is confusing. Grunwald claims that Obama's actions/solutions are basically long term, although the stimulus stopped the loss of 800,000 jobs a month. This claim is popular on the left, even though it's economically ignorant. During a recession companies shed workers at basically the same time, then the job losses level off. Grunwald expects us to believe that without the stimulus 800,000 jobs would have been lost until.... what? -- until there were no more jobs? Grunwald claims that Obama has succeeded in transforming America, especially the beginning transformation from oil and coal to renewable energy sources. Solyndra, Grunwald says, is only a small example of the failure of government subsidies regarding green energy, although Solyndra is not the only failure. I've said all along that Obama has built a regulatory structure that bureacrats are filling in constantly, but I was told by Leftists that Obama has not created a lot of regulations, that Obama is basically a moderate. Grunwald states otherwise, and Hayes used this to make his case for Keynesian stimulus.

It's difficult to unravel the tangled web of logic woven by Hayes and his guests. Hayes had on his show the obligatory "example" of a real live person who lost her job, along with her husband, in this recession. Both the woman and her husband receive government benefits like food stamps, plus they receive money from government to pay for their schooling which will give them new skills to get good jobs in a changing economy. The real life woman said that Obama has helped her family, although I'm not sure what Obama did specifically to help them, since the safety net benefits were there before Obama. The real life unemployed woman said that Ryan will destroy the dependency that enables her family to get by, but that her and her husband have paid into the system when they made $100,000 a year, so they are just getting back what they've put in. It's true that people like the real life woman pay into the system, and it's reasonable to expect help when it's finally needed. Ryan wouldn't disagree with this, but Hayes dishonestly gave the impression that Ryan considers the real life unemployed woman a moocher.

Ryan has criticized the welfare system in America because for a certain part of society it becomes an option to working a steady job. The Left says Ryan and other critics are talking about people of color as the group who use welfare as an option to avoid work, but that's not the case with most critics -- it's not the case with Ryan. Ryan is not a racist, but the Left loves to imply racism when welfare is criticized. It is the Left that automatically brings up of people of color when the subject of welfare is discussed.

Hayes's point in his show this morning is that Ryan supported Keynesian policies in 2002, Grunwald has proved that Obama's Keynesian actions prevented total unemployment, real life people use the safety net and make reasonable plans to adjust in a recession so that long term they can succeed, and all this justifies the welfare state, so we should spend more money on a greater stimulus and a greater, more comprehensive safety net, so there.

I don't know the context of the excerpt Hayes found from a Ryan speech in 2002, but I have no doubt that 10 years ago Ryan supported some government effort to help put people to work in a down economy. Statism has been present on the Right and Left, and Ryan is no exception. It's the American people who will have to hold politicians' feet to the fire in order to stop the interventions. The interventions created by bipartisan support in 2002 led to a greater bubble effect than the dotcom bubble they were trying to fix. It's all the government "fixes" which have led to this crippled economy. Hayes only looks at what government should do to help those hurt by the recession -- he doesn't acknowledge that government created the deep recession through previous interventions.

We are creating a fatal Catch 22 -- the adjustment needed in a recession to remove unproductive activity so that productive acitivity can tak its place is becoming a greater, more painful adjustment because government has pushed the adjustment down the road and created bubbles in lieu of adjustment. The Fed has kept interest rates low and has kept the economy afloat through money creation, but the fundamentals don't support the economy. Government interference is preventing recovery, yet progressives like Hayes and his guests are clamoring for more interventions.

So, what should be done? What about the people harmed by government interventions which cause recessions and have now caused a Great and Deep Recession? Total readjustment to a free market is the solution. This real life unemployed woman could have had a private insurance/retirement plan that was purchased by her parents for her when she was born, and that policy would be much more generous that government welfare when a safety net is needed -- the policy could have been designed. The woman on Hayes' show said she is a planner -- well, she could have planned real solutions in a free market sans government intervention which make such plans impossible. In an economy in which people such as the real life unemployed woman works and is able to keep most of what she makes, people such as her would surely give to charity to help those who are unfortunate and can't help themselves. Surely this is a better solution than the government mess we currently suffer under.

Obama disappointment

From the beginning when Obama spoke at the national Democrat convention and received the blessing of Ted Kennedy, I said I didn't get it. The first time I heard Obama speak, I knew he was clever and polished, but there was a superfical confidence which I took as lack of depth. Presidents don't have to be Great Wise Men or Women, but they should have depth. The last three Presidents have lacked the X factor, but Obama in particular has been a disppointment. Obama is educated, and he's clever, but his performance is marked not only by inexperience but by a lack of gravitas. This was a historic event, but Obama is a not a historic character. In fact, Obama is fairly banal in his constant partisan hackery, and no matter how he tries to hide the partisan hackery behind big ideas, his ideas are small. There's nothing original about Obama and much that's unbecoming of a President -- plus, Obama doesn't even try to resist the status quo.

I've never seen more of a President on tv and received so little in substance. Obama had a chance to face big challenges, but over and over Obama has taken a partisan, small, statist route, determined to pass a progressive agenda and willing to sell his integrity to maintain power to finish the few items left on the agenda -- most of the agenda is just favoritism to the Democrat base which appears strategical for long-term Democrat dominance. From the start of his administration, Obama had the opportunity to advance race relations and has failed. Obama had a chance to take on DC connections with favored corporations, yet he has Immelt as an advisor, and his economic team was a crony-fest of big bankers. Obama could have been a champion for small and medium sized businesses against entrenched power, thus inspiring a new generation of black entrepreneurs to enter a market in which Obama battles to even the playing field by ending all corporate welfare and unfair advantages through the tax code and costly regulations.

Obama could have fought to end the mideast wars and developed a doctrine of non-intervention, thus creating a vision for America's role in the world going into the 21st century -- he could have challenged the military/industrial complex to justify its expenses and outdated defense contracts which crank out obsolete weapons through political engineering.

Obama could have faced the financial crisis and transcended failed Keynesian policies by challenging the private sector to create and innovate and move forward. Obama could have resisted the tired, old attempt to nationalize healthcare by allowing the market to develope innovative solutions to healthcare. Obama could have refused to follow the progressive script written for him by the Left, and he could have been a great, transformational President. There is no longer any question that statism has failed, yet Obama doubled down on government intevention. A little foresight and understanding should have told Obama and his advisors that it's only a matter of time before the statist system implodes in a global meltdown, so this would be a great opportunity to take the lead and end the Left/Right divide and simply rely on good economics,  American ingenuity and the much-needed transition from Global Militarism to Global Free Trade with America leading the way, and, in the process, attracting investors from around the world.

Even if it's too much to expect Obama to abandon the welfare state in favor of private solutions, the welfare state will be much stronger in a healthy, growing economy with new wealth created than in a declining statist system drowning in debt.

Morning Joe 8/3/2011 -- Political incoherence

On Morning Joe today there was more political incoherence following yesterday's show with its political incoherence. Mark Halperin was back, and he tried to provide a little rational political analysis, but it appears that the Tea Party, limited government conservatives and libertarians have muddled the thinking of many in the political class, especially the host of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough. Scarborough said that Obama should have stared down the Tea Partiers and used the 14th Amendment route to break the back of the Tea Party -- remember that Scarborough said that Obama should have done this.

When Scarborough has been criticized in the past for saying things like this, he's condescendingly explained that he's a political analyst, and that the Cheeto-eating bloggers in their underwear should understand that it's not necessarily his personal political belief. So, let's ask, from a political analysis perspective, why Obama should have gone the 14th Amendment route and broken the back of the Tea Party. I suppose from a very limited political advantage perspective, if Scarborough is right, which Halperin said he isn't right, and I don't think he's right, taking the 14th Amendment route would please the independents and the Democrat base, therefore giving Obama more street cred with the public, except for the "Tea Party" faction which would be marginalized. But would this be good for the country? Should Obama have ignored the separation of powers and further expanded executive powers through this power grab? Would independents think more highly of Obama for using the 14th Amendment and bypassing all attempts to limit spending?

Later in the program, a chart was shown regarding increased spending way above current revenue with the trend going higher and higher in the next decade. Scarborough, and all the regulars and guests, were depressed by the projections, and it was stated that if we don't do anything, we're headed for disaster. The public knows this too -- independents know this. So, again, I ask, should Obama have used the 14th Amendment to bypass any attempts to deal with the debt crisis, expand executive power, thereby weakening the representatives who are the only ones right now who can do anything to limit government power and spending? Independents would think that this is a good thing?

Scarborough, and most liberals and moderates, are incoherent. On one hand, they say we need to ignore deficits in a recession and spend more on infrastructure and job creation, then on the other hand, they see that all Bush's spending and stimuli, and all Obama's spending and stimuli have done nothing but put us hopelessly further in debt and caused businesses in America to freeze in their tracks because they don't know what's coming next. The incredible consensus among the Morning Joe crew was that this decade of heated Keynesian activity has been necessary to prevent things from being worse -- and now we need more spending and stimuli! How freaking insane are these people?

The Tea Party, limited government movement threatens political class players like Joe Scarborough, because the Tea Partiers are signaling the failure of statism, and the political class is frightened of a truly free market -- it puts them at risk of losing their niche in the ever expanding and powerful State machine. This is the debate -- continued government intervention and stimulus efforts, or remove government from the economy and allow a free market to adjust and start growing through productive activity. We had better decide soon, before these idiots in the politcal class completely destroy the country just to protect the status quo in DC.

So, what is neoliberalism?

In Richard Peet's book, Unholy Trinity, he writes:

    The main opposition to Keynesianism came eventually not from the external threat of communism, as most histories have it, but from internal movements for "reform" started by neoliberals. Neoliberalism is an entire structure of beliefs founded on right-wing, but not conservative, ideas about individual freedom, political democracy, self-regulating markets and entrepreneurship.

Peet goes on to relate neoliberalism to classical liberalism, and justifies the "neo" by saying the neoliberals are applying classical liberal principles to modern circumstances, calling for deregulation and privatization of government programs. Then Peet relates neoliberalism to the ideas of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.

Peet is describing the libertarian position -- limited government and a free market, but then Peet goes on to describe the actions of neoliberalism as anything but libertarian -- he writes about coercive actions of States to rig the economic game and enrich favored corporations. Peet is confusing classical liberalism (libertarianism) with State capitalism, corporatism and just plain American style statism in a mixed economy. Peet denounces libertarian ideas by assigning to them all the ills of government/corporate enmeshment.

The purpose of Peet's book is to reveal the rigged global economic game designed by the power elite within the IMF, World Bank and WTO. I too reject this type of globalization, but what has been created through statist methods has nothing to do with what Peet initially described as basic libertarianism. We can smell a smear job. First, set neoliberalism up as a revival of classical liberalism, then assign to the new liberalism all the problems created when power mongers in government and industry join together to increase both wealth and power for the elite actors.

This explains the current attack on the Koch brothers and the denigration of millionaires&billionaires and Wall Street, as if corporations and wealthy individuals have used classical liberal ideas to dominate the US government, the domestic economy and even the global economy. The new classical liberal corporate warriors slayed Keynesianism and conquered the world. After three or four stimulus efforts and calls from government to "invest" in education, infrastructure and green energy, I don't think Keynesianism has been slayed, or even scratched. Peet does say that Keynesianism will fail when tried again -- he has other plans.

The ideas of Reagan and Thatcher and Laffer were a blip on our statist journey, and with Reagan, government was more powerful after his eight years than before he was elected. How anyone who has paid attention to the increase in government power can blame classical liberal principles for the current situation is a mystery. The fact that regulations were captured and power players had free financial reign has nothing to do with classical liberal principles or libertarianism. A government which is limited and does not have power to sell cannot be bought. As I said in an earlier post -- our problem is not wealth accumulation by business people -- our problem is power accumulation, and this can only happen under a form of statism. Limited governments don't accumulate and sell power.

I will go further in the next post and describe the current condition of statism and how writers like Peet obscure the real problems to justify their progressive/socialistic solutions. I will show how a real free market discourages wealth accumulation by a few, and how a limited government helps prevent the human defect of power-hunger to run rampant.