THE IDEA IS “GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST”

30 04 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Keynesian economic philosophy suggests there is only one remedy for a docile economy and that is growth.  Austerity, so say the Keynesian disciple, disables growth. This prospective is tethered to the belief that since private enterprise is not stimulating the economy (reasons unimportant), growth can only be achieved by government spending. Therefore theoretically, to follow this principle to its extreme, a national government (by Keynesian mandate) is to print sufficient fiat currency to “kick-start” the economy.  The only cautionary note is that once the economy has “taken off” the government must withdraw from its depository intervention before provoking runaway inflation. Keynesians do acknowledge that some inflation, a controllable percentage – say one to two percent – is helpful to restoring a vibrant economic environment.

Setting aside the Keynesian theory and the in real terms value of its effectiveness, I do believe that the process of flooding the economy with cash actually stimulates political craft and extralegal favoritism, multiple varieties of corruptive behavior; and most damaging, the voluminous printing of fiat currency will feed the monetization of debt.

Monetization of debt is where the government issues debt to finance spending this debt purchased by the central bank leaving the monetary system with an increased supply of base money. When the national government monetizes its debt the outcome invariably is an increase in the monetary base. The increase in cash, over a period of time, will shift the aggregate demand curve to the right leading to a rise in the price level. Some will label such a financial exercise as an inflation tax; creating a condition whereby debt is financed by creditors. This monetization technique is a simultaneous reevaluation to debtors lowering the original funds owed as the overall value of creditors’ fixed income assets drop. In other words, as the value of the US Dollar drops in purchasing power inflation automatically cheapens the debt owed.

In its finality the Keynesians’ policy answer to an economic downturn is to monetize the federal debt; in so doing, debt, private and public is monetized. The Keynesian model has been the practice expressed by both political parties and at each occurrence the value of the dollar has been the fare. The depreciation of the dollar’s purchasing power is best expressed in the purchase of oil from OPEC member nations. Those that court this approach to managing an economic downturn point out that since the US Dollar is worth less than, let’s say, the Euro exports will rise and the current account deficit will abate. This kind of thinking is for sure imaginative, but in fact it is naïve and wholly incorrect (if anyone is interested in why I have made this statement asks and I will answer.)

The liberal progressives love the economic theories of Mr. Keynes. Because one cannot adapt his theories into practice with increasing the size and operational scope of the central government. The Keynesian philosophy requires economic planning at a national level; this requirement brings in the wonks, super brains of academia, statism, elitism, and the moral righteousness only afforded by those who know better than most and can therefore rise above the fray of common practice.

I do not know any citizen that would reject an economic policies even if sponsored by the national government that actually financially enhanced the life of every American. I just do not believe that government, given absolute control of any and all moneymaking income, could enhance the life of every American. In fact I believe there is a proportionate scale wherein increase government intervention degrades instead of improves a citizen’s life. But let’s really get crazy here and suggest that government, if given the authority, could enhance the lives of America’s citizenry, I would consider the price of government control too high a price and decline the idea.

I’ve often wondered if a minimum wage is such a good idea, after all it is the poor and disenfranchised that such a law is designed to protect. Why not make the minimum wage twenty-dollars an hour? Why not simply make poverty a crime and force the government to directly pay the poor a salary above the poverty number? Well, of course if that was done government middle men and their infernal bureaucracy would be short changed. Unions would complain because the number of public employees would be halved and politicians would have that much less to promise.

Advertisements




THE IDEA IS “GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST”

30 04 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Keynesian economic philosophy suggests there is only one remedy for a docile economy and that is growth.  Austerity, so say the Keynesian disciple, disables growth. This prospective is tethered to the belief that since private enterprise is not stimulating the economy (reasons unimportant), growth can only be achieved by government spending. Therefore theoretically, to follow this principle to its extreme, a national government (by Keynesian mandate) is to print sufficient fiat currency to “kick-start” the economy.  The only cautionary note is that once the economy has “taken off” the government must withdraw from its depository intervention before provoking runaway inflation. Keynesians do acknowledge that some inflation, a controllable percentage – say one to two percent – is helpful to restoring a vibrant economic environment.

Setting aside the Keynesian theory and the its real term result on the value of its effectiveness, I do believe that the process of flooding the economy with cash actually stimulates political craft and extralegal favoritism, multiple varieties of corruptive behavior; and most damaging, the voluminous printing of fiat currency will feed the monetization of debt.

Monetization of debt is where the government issues debt to finance spending this debt purchased by the central bank leaving the monetary system with an increased supply of base money. When the national government monetizes its debt the outcome invariably is an increase in the monetary base. The increase in cash, over a period of time, will shift the aggregate demand curve to the right leading to a rise in the price level. Some will label such a financial exercise as an inflation tax; creating a condition whereby debt is financed by creditors. This monetization technique is a simultaneous reevaluation to debtors lowering the original funds owed as the overall value of creditors’ fixed income assets drop. In other words, as the value of the US Dollar drops in purchasing power inflation automatically cheapens the debt owed.

In its finality the Keynesians’ policy answer to an economic downturn is to monetize the federal debt; in so doing, debt, private and public is monetized. The Keynesian model has been the practice expressed by both political parties and at each occurrence the value of the dollar has been the fare. The depreciation of the dollar’s purchasing power is best expressed in the purchase of oil from OPEC member nations. Those that court this approach to managing an economic downturn point out that since the US Dollar is worth less than, let’s say, the Euro exports will rise and the current account deficit will abate. This kind of thinking is for sure imaginative, but in fact it is naïve and wholly incorrect (if anyone is interested in why I have made this statement ask and I will answer).

The liberal progressives love the economic theories of Mr. Keynes. Because one cannot adapt his theories into practice without increasing the size and operational scope of the central government. The Keynesian philosophy requires economic planning at a national level; this requirement brings in the wonks, super brains of academia, statism, elitism, and the moral righteousness only afforded by those who know better than most and can therefore rise above the fray of common practice.

I do not know any citizen that would reject an economic policies even if sponsored by the national government that actually financially enhanced the life of every American. I just do not believe that government, given absolute control of any and all moneymaking income, could enhance the life of every American. In fact I believe there is a proportionate scale wherein increase government intervention degrades instead of improves a citizen’s life. But let’s really get crazy here and suggest that government, if given the authority, could enhance the lives of America’s citizenry, I would consider the price of government control too high a price and decline the idea.

I’ve often wondered if a minimum wage is such a good idea, and it is the poor and disenfranchised such a law is designed to protect. Why not make the minimum wage twenty-dollars an hour? Why not simply make poverty a crime and force the government to directly pay the poor a salary above the poverty number? Well, of course if that was done government middle men and their infernal bureaucracy would be short changed. Unions would complain because the number of public employees would be halved and politicians would have that much less to promise.





THE IDEA IS “GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST”

29 04 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Keynesian economic philosophy suggests there is only one remedy for a docile economy and that is growth.  Austerity, so say the Keynesian disciple, disables growth. This prospective is tethered to the belief that since private enterprise is not stimulating the economy (reasons unimportant), growth can only be achieved by government spending. Therefore theoretically, to follow this principle to its extreme, a national government (by Keynesian mandate) is to print sufficient fiat currency to “kick-start” the economy.  The only cautionary note is that once the economy has “taken off” the government must withdraw from its depository intervention before provoking runaway inflation. Keynesians do acknowledge that some inflation, a controllable percentage – say one to two percent – is helpful to restoring a vibrant economic environment.

Setting aside the Keynesian theory and the in real terms value of its effectiveness, I do believe that the process of flooding the economy with cash actually stimulates political craft and extralegal favoritism, multiple varieties of corruptive behavior; and most damaging, the voluminous printing of fiat currency will feed the monetization of debt.

Monetization of debt is where the government issues debt to finance spending this debt purchased by the central bank leaving the monetary system with an increased supply of base money. When the national government monetizes its debt the outcome invariably is an increase in the monetary base. The increase in cash, over a period of time, will shift the aggregate demand curve to the right leading to a rise in the price level. Some will label such a financial exercise as an inflation tax; creating a condition whereby debt is financed by creditors. This monetization technique is a simultaneous reevaluation to debtors lowering the original funds owed as the overall value of creditors’ fixed income assets drop. In other words, as the value of the US Dollar drops in purchasing power inflation automatically cheapens the debt owed.

In its finality the Keynesians’ policy answer to an economic downturn is to monetize the federal debt; in so doing, debt, private and public is monetized. The Keynesian model has been the practice expressed by both political parties and at each occurrence the value of the dollar has been the fare. The depreciation of the dollar’s purchasing power is best expressed in the purchase of oil from OPEC member nations. Those that court this approach to managing an economic downturn point out that since the US Dollar is worth less than, let’s say, the Euro exports will rise and the current account deficit will abate. This kind of thinking is for sure imaginative, but in fact it is naïve and wholly incorrect (if anyone is interested in why I have made this statement ask and I will answer).

The liberal progressives love the economic theories of Mr. Keynes. Because one cannot adapt his theories into practice with increasing the size and operational scope of the central government. The Keynesian philosophy requires economic planning at a national level; this requirement brings in the wonks, super brains of academia, statism, elitism, and the moral righteousness only afforded by those who know better than most and can therefore rise above the fray of common practice.

I do not know any citizen that would reject an economic policies even if sponsored by the national government that actually financially enhanced the life of every American. I just do not believe that government, given absolute control of any and all moneymaking income, could enhance the life of every American. In fact I believe there is a proportionate scale wherein increase government intervention degrades instead of improves a citizen’s life. But let’s really get crazy here and suggest that government, if given the authority, could enhance the lives of America’s citizenry, I would consider the price of government control too high a price and decline the idea.

I’ve often wondered if a minimum wage is such a good idea, and it is the poor and disenfranchised such a law is designed to protect. Why not make the minimum wage twenty-dollars an hour? Why not simply make poverty a crime and force the government to directly pay the poor a salary above the poverty number? Well, of course if that was done government middle men and their infernal bureaucracy would be short changed. Unions would complain because the number of public employees would be halved and politicians would have that much less to promise.





OBAMA, MORE LIKE THE WIZARD OF OZ

20 04 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

It is so much easier in a dictatorship. Well… probably not: even in a dictatorship one needs to persuade, incentivize, appease, and manipulate. Plus of course there’s always the necessary bureaucracy to convenience and the armed forces to entice with panegyric paeans. Now that I cogitate, in a dictatorship there are princelings to delicately balance, the strong arm dark forces led by a psychotic eager if not anxious to enter any fray, multi-contenders to assuage or all together eliminate; and naturally, there is the one who watches the two, the many who monitor the few and the few who keep an eye on the many. I think a dictatorship is just not going to work.

Governing three hundred million odd people from Washington is not a task where near-perfection is a practical possibility. But the task of governing gets even more complicated when arrogant panjandrums substitute the welfare of the nation for partisan political gain.

As often sighted, everyone takes their cue from the leader. The leader sets the overall standard of operational norm, the moral ambiance, and the obligor of accepting individual responsibility for all actions. It is the leader that establishes a sense of bequeathed authority — an authority derived from the nation’s founding documents, an election, statutory laws that are preeminent and supersede the will of man; the leader of a democratically inspired republic such as these United States does not manipulate the rules of order, breech the spirit of precedence, and regard the other branches of government with intimidation, disdain, and disrespect.  

A leader of a free republic does not stoop to contemptuousness when explaining the ideas or ideals of his opponent; he does not reach out with the right hand only to swat with the left. The president is often utilizing bellicose and animus exaggerations either in word or behavior. Such is not conducive to tolerance or understanding. A republic cannot govern without the will of the people and to the people tolerance, and understanding is an intrinsic characterization of Americanism.

President Obama speaks mostly in the putative; he is conjectural instead of objective. The president thrives in the allegorical, to paraphrase an adage of truthfulness: Obama will never ‘slay the beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact.’

Washington with its president is full of loquacious politicians with fine robes and pretty words; but they are not leaders, often enough they can’t even properly follow.  If it wasn’t for tenure instead of term limits we could simply be satisfied with their inevitable relieve. But that is not going to happen. So, like Sisyphus, we have a government that rolls the promises of change up the hill only to find it rolling back down the hill.

The optimist in me is hopeful. But I fear the sea change required of Washington is as impossible as impossible gets.





OBAMA IS THE SPITTING IMAGE OF REAGAN

14 04 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

The recent revelation by President Obama that Ronald Reagan’s political-economic ideals are the exactness of his very own should calm the concerns of Karl Rove and a cadre of conservative acolytes; nevertheless, his progressive base must be rattled whilst Ted Kennedy’s spirit is wishing the corporal being had voted for Hillary.  

Imagine, all this time we conservatives deciphered the president’s political characterization as “definitely liberal progressive” to “socialist”. But now with the knowing that President Obama’s governing philosophy mimics that of the former conservative icon… Obama, obviously, has elicited a sigh of relief amongst the members of the House of Representatives.

Now that the president has invoked Reagan sameness, what is the Republican brand to run on?  The Tea Party has no agenda of protest; Obama is a conservative, and all is right in the world.  

Of course, setting the speech aside, juxtaposing Obama’s newest revelation (of philosophical fraternity with Reagan) over and into the ideological agenda of liberal progressivism is as difficult as fitting a round into a square; but then, the tasks of manipulating the electorate into believing that the round can enter all the way through a square is a signature Obama phenomenon.

As if a wizard, the president possesses the extraordinary gift of mixing and weaving the ignoble of duplicity, innuendo, deceit, and naked falsities into discernible rhetoric. President Obama has seduced a super majority of Americans of African descent, the professors of academia, just about all the Hollywood celebrities, unions, a significant number of Hispanic Americans, and of course all the contrarian’s, minimalist, and those citizens that are dependent on the government for subsistence. President Obama’s political constituency is formable.         

The President of the United States has no qualms or hesitations with fabricating at will…outright, plain and naked falsities. Scurrilous accusations roll from inward to outward as natural as inhaling and exhaling. Yes, he is an attorney.

I listened to Romney’s speech at the NRA conference; I felt he grasps the essence of what needed to be said. For better or nominal he is our candidate. Obama must be defeated; this nation cannot withstand another four years of progressivism at the least and socialism at the worst.

Our constitution is tattered and soiled. This nation must defeat Obama and his confederates. The elections of 1800 and 1860 were certainly significant historical benchmarks; but in the interest of conservative principles and their longevity of meaningfulness hereto forward I think this forthcoming election much more important than either.

This next election will define Americanism and whether we are a “shiny city upon a hill.” This is the challenge, is this nation to adhere to the ideals of founding principles or adapt, modify, and circumvent the constitution of 1789? Are we Americans to reinvigorate the spirit of American exceptionalism?

Where in the priorities of what is meaningful to the America of 2012 is the measure of individual liberty? Is freedom blasé? I think Patrick Henry said it best, “give me liberty or give me death.” 





AT WHAT PRICE GOVERNESS?

9 04 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Post, Alexis De Tocqueville’s essay on American democracy wherein the author noted the guiding principles of Americanism as those founded on individualism, a spirit of egalitarian, where liberty, property, and religion were honored as inalienable virtues. America has, since De Tocqueville, realized a steady reduction of the average American’s appreciation of individualism; egalitarianism has been replaced by concerns over income disparity, liberty has been traded for government oversight and benevolence, private property is subject to a government’s perception of public good, and religion must conform to government mandates respective of theological conflict.           

After two-hundred and twenty-three years of existence the ideological principles of the Federalist Party have captured the concept, vision, and political meaningfulness of America’s governing. The party, initiated in George Washington’s second term, originated and reflected the political will manifested in the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Adams. The Federalist comprehensively chartered the philosophical means, the judgment criteria, and the basis of Chief Justice John Marshall monumental decisions; the ideals of the Federalist Party has decisively overwhelmed and superseded any of the Founder’s wildest apprehensions and hesitations.

The Federalist intentions of yesteryear, by means unapparent and enigmatic, have captured the essence of Federalist’s original intent by enveloping from the political left instead of the right.  The progressively leftist government of Obama has with the advent of presidential executive edicts, presidential appointments of czars that evade senatorial approval, the preponderance of congressional recess appointments, the unilateral unprecedented spending of taxpayer funds financed by a Federal Reserve that simply prints fiat currency to keep pace with spending. A defense department cabinet member that says a congressional declaration of war is not necessary as long as there is a United Nations. A President Obama, who lies, distorts, misdirects, and willfully usurps authority. One who is joyously applauded by an embracing main-stream media? Is this behavior in keeping with the ideals of the original Federalist? I don’t think so.

The central government is dominate, omnificent, omnipotent, coercive, and distant from the people. The present power of the federal government has diminished the meaningfulness of federalism, by mandate and adherents to federal regulations the central government regularly mocks the sovereignty of States, and has by process and governess eliminated the practical legitimacy of the Checks and Balances system integral to the application of Constitutional maxims.  

The congressional elected are occupiers, long-term residents of congressional offices. They are facilitators of and for like-same political affiliations. They pledge their attention to lobbyist with offerings and to persons-of-interest persuaders that feed campaign funding to their advantage.  The politicians of recent memories prefer the retaining or attaining of power above all other considerations.  They are apparatchik’s of an ideological allegiance, as long as, such allegiance serves their interest. Their beliefs fit the moment and have no independent veracity; if in power they vote to retain, if out of power they voice themselves as sang-froid contrarians. Political campaigns are not a transparent truthful rendering of the candidate’s intentions if elected; they are charades designed by Psephologists who, no matter the cost, are one of a coterie of win-the-election promoters.  

President Obama, with the aid and assist of political professionals produces, writes, directs, acts, and distributes his campaign for reelection. For President Obama his reelection campaign is as if a movie. The president understands that truthfulness in an election is irrelevant. He is bound by only a figment of his own imaginative. He knows that he is a law professor, a man of academia, a theorist who is quite pleased with the idea of propagating his brand of political philosophy, even if, his theoretical ideals have no bearing in a real world; he is satisfied with his theories though the effects are pragmatically detrimental or ineffectual. The president must act or act like he is acting; therefore, he gives a speech, well, many speeches. He knows he is not an implementer, a hands-on builder, he is not a leader. President understands that he is simply an actor in a play of his own making. His political persona is a ruse.

Regardless of evidence to the converse he artfully dramatizes his raison d’être as a reflective of sapient and sanguine merit. He portrays himself as a representative of Vox populi. His mannerisms and oral expressions portrait a Stupor mundi of a man but in fact he is an illiberal elitist a liberal progressive who has expunged all conservative inclinations from his being. Obama is a didactic hauteur. A Chicago politician who espouses the governing philosophy of statism; he is an autocrat of necessity. Which simply means, (as one example) President Obama will state that the health-care mandate is not a tax before an election and then charge his attorney general’s consul to pray that the mandate is a tax in front of the Supreme Court.     

America requires a renaissance, a recommitment to the ideals of limited government, of recognizing the potency of individualism as a political philosophy, as well as, the belief in the trinity of liberty, property, and the freedom of religious worship disrespectful of government mandates of conformation to its will.





AT WHAT PRICE GOVERNESS?

8 04 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Post, Alexis De Tocqueville’s essay on American democracy wherein the author noted the guiding principles of Americanism as those founded on individualism, a spirit of egalitarian, where liberty, property, and religion were honored as inalienable virtues. America has, since De Tocqueville, realized a steady reduction of the average American’s appreciation of individualism; egalitarianism has been replaced by concerns over income disparity, liberty has been traded for government oversight and benevolence, private property is subject to a government’s perception of public good, and religion must conform to government mandates respective of theological conflict.           

After two-hundred and twenty-three years of existence the ideological principles of the Federalist Party have captured the concept, vision, and political meaningfulness of America’s governing. The party, initiated in George Washington’s second term, the party that originated and reflected the political will manifested in the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Adams. The party that comprehensively chartered the philosophical means, the judgment criteria, and the basis of Chief Justice John Marshall monumental decisions; the ideals of the Federalist Party has decisively overwhelmed and superseded any of the Founder’s wildest apprehensions and hesitations in voting for the Constitution of 1789.

The Federalist intentions of yesteryear, by means unapparent and enigmatic, have captured the essence of Federalist’s original intent by enveloping from the political left instead of the right.  The progressively leftist government of Obama has with the advent of presidential executive edicts, presidential appointments of czars that evade senatorial approval, the preponderance of congressional recess appointments, the unilateral unprecedented spending of taxpayer funds financed by a Federal Reserve that simply prints fiat currency to keep pace with spending. A defense department cabinet member that says a congressional declaration of war is not necessary as long as there is a United Nations. A President Obama, who lies, distorts, misdirects, and willfully usurps authority. One who is joyously applauded by an embracing main-stream media? Is this behavior in keeping with the ideals of the original Federalist? I don’t think so.

The central government is dominate, omnificent, omnipotent, coercive, and distant from the people. The present power of the federal government has diminished the meaningfulness of federalism, by mandate and adherents to federal regulations regularly mocks the sovereignty of States, and has by process and governess eliminated the practical legitimacy of the Checks and Balances system integral to the application of Constitutional maxims.  

The congressional elected are occupiers, long-term residents of congressional offices. They are facilitators of and for like-same political affiliations. They pledge their attention to lobbyist with offerings and to persons-of-interest persuaders that feed campaign funding to their advantage.  The politicians of recent memories prefer the retaining or attaining of power above all other considerations.  They are apparatchik’s of an ideological allegiance, as long as, such allegiance serves their interest. Their beliefs fit the moment and have no independent veracity; if in power they vote to retain, if out of power they voice themselves as sang-froid contrarians. Political campaigns are not a transparent truthful rendering of the candidate’s intentions if elected; they are charades designed by Psephologists who, no matter the cost, are one of a coterie of win-the-election promoters.  

President Obama, with the aid and assist of political professionals produces, writes, directs, acts, and distributes his campaign for reelection. For President Obama the reelection campaign is a movie. The president understands that truthfulness in an election is irrelevant. He is bound by only a figment of his own imaginative. He knows that he is a law professor, a man of academia, a theorist who is quite pleased with the idea of propagating his brand of political philosophy, even if, his theoretical ideals have no bearing in a real world; he is satisfied with his theories though the effects are pragmatically detrimental or ineffectual. The president must act or act like he is acting; therefore, he gives a speech, well, many speeches. He knows he is not an implementer, a hands-on builder, he is not a leader. President understands that he is simply an actor in a play of his own making. His political persona is a ruse.

Regardless of evidence to the converse he artfully dramatizes his raison d’être as a reflective of sapient and sanguine merit. He portrays himself as a representative of Vox populi. His mannerisms and oral expressions portrait a Stupor mundi of a man but in fact he is an illiberal elitist a liberal progressive who has expunged all conservative inclinations from his being. Obama is a didactic hauteur. A Chicago politician who espouses the governing philosophy of statism; he is an autocrat of necessity. Which simply means, (as one example) President Obama will state that the health-care mandate is not a tax before an election and then charge his attorney general’s consul to pray that the mandate is a tax in front of the Supreme Court.     

America requires a renaissance, a recommitment to the ideals of limited government, of recognizing the potency of individualism as a political philosophy, as well as, the belief in the trinity of liberty, property, and the freedom of religious worship disrespectful of government mandates of conformation to its will.