- This topic has 4 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
I think it was in 1967 or 1968 that an infantry captain famously quoted to a reporter about recent operations that
They had to destroy the village to save it
Bush said something recently that is very similar when giving an interview to CNN about the financial crisis. Here is the article:Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy and here is the quote:
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."
I am disappointed because I have thought Bush was a man of principle. I have often thought that that is what the left hates about him so much. He has been remarkably steadfast in sticking to his principles whether right or wrong. It is one of the few things I admire about the man.What gets me the most is how asinine this statement is. It is like saying you became a homosexual to save heterosexuals, or you gave up your gun to protect the rights of gun ownership. I dont understand how abandoning principles helps the principles being abandoned. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me on how the recent government moves have secured the free market by circumventing free market principles?
I think his rationale is that the government already intervenes in market affairs to a limited degree anyway to maintain order, so even more intervention for a finite time will create greater stability during a time of great distress. I can see what he's trying to do – prevent a large-scale domino effect by propping up select bulwark industries – but what this will end up doing is preventing these industries from making hard reform decisions that they should have made in the past. I'm glad that we have those Republican congressmen, though, who have stood up to the auto industry in attempts to make them rethink their union agreements. Another problem I have is that with Obama entering office, there's no telling whether government intercession in the private market will cease. Will a new government department be established to oversee the bailout industries? And sooner or later (absent complete meltdown) we're going to see a turnaround in the U.S. economy over the next few years. Some will take this as "proof" that government intervention is good economics, sad to say.
The precedent had been set before when Chrysler was bailed out. The government always steps in when monopolies threaten the market or when large sector companies face financial ruin. The only difference this time is scope. Bush went ahead and did it because he is a lame duck. Had he still one more term to serve, he would never succumbed to the pressure to pull this stunt. He's legacy hunting on our tax dollars. Yes I too am very disappointed in the man I voted for twice.
Remember the Hindenburg !!I mean The Hindenburg Omenhttp://www.datelinezero.com/?p=2558 http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/08/23/yes-folks-hindenburg-omen-tripped-again/ A kind of modern tocsin ?
A kind of modern tocsin ?
A modern canary in the vault? (is that the right bird?)Actually the same guy who runs the Hindenburg study said he doesn't plan to be out of the market for too long. So not quite the crash one might otherwise think it could be.
I have been expecting the market to drop further for awhile now. I quit buying stock about four months ago and am waiting for the crash to buy again and then sell on the bounce. If you have the money available there is a profit to be made in this cr@#$y economy. I intend to be one of those people. I will say I am staying away from government and municipal bonds though, to me buying those is betting on a horse with a broken leg.I had not heard of the Hindenburg Omen except for briefly before. I don't know how much faith I put in yet either.
