We have gone down the wrong road. Further Government intervention and regulation in the economy is wiping out the middle class and making it harder for large American businesses to compete globally. Globalization is inevitable and healthy, however in order to benefit one must have free trade and free markets.
At home there are two approaches thought to help stimulate the economy, one works, one doesn't. The Keynesian approach is to have large deficit government spending in order to stimulate the economy, while the Friedman approach is to reduce spending and cut taxes.
You can immediately see the flaws in the Keynesian approach, as the effects of a stimulus plan must first be filtered through bureaucracy (an incredibly inefficient process, and thank God for if it wasn't for the inefficiency of the bureaucracy we would be slaves already) which costs hundreds of millions of dollars to have mindless zombies lick envelopes and key in figures, whereas a cut tax immediately effects a business and saves them money almost instantaneously while keeping the money out of the inefficient loop and out of the bureaucrats hands.
Right now we are borrowing money from China and giving it to middle income to poor income families in order to boost consumption (To see a noticeable difference stimulate production not consumption as this not only makes products cheaper but supplies jobs). So we are going to get a check which is Chinese money in order to go to the store and purchase items that are most likely produced in China... Interesting... Stimulus Checks for China? If we reduced domestic taxes we KNOW that it would help AMERICAN businesses, and thats where we need the help.
Milton Friedman said how he wondered how the world would have turned out if we had decided that tax cuts were more effective means to stimulate the economy rather than spending.
I am aware that we also need to cut spending dramatically if we are to cut taxes, however, Friedman often professed that there was never a tax cut he didn't like because of the fact that it usually slowed down the amount of government spending.
Anyways, thats my rant. Smaller Government, Laizzes Faire Capitalism, minimize Government Spending, and cut taxes.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 331 reads
This requires more than a passing jibe. See below.
Good post. I appreciated this portion especially;
Right now we are borrowing money from China and giving it to middle income to poor income families in order to boost consumption (To see a noticeable difference stimulate production not consumption as this not only makes products cheaper but supplies jobs). So we are going to get a check which is Chinese money in order to go to the store and purchase items that are most likely produced in China... Interesting... Stimulus Checks for China? If we reduced domestic taxes we KNOW that it would help AMERICAN businesses, and thats where we need the help.
Well said.
The Money Masters website discusses the problems of the current debt money economy and proposes an alternative scheme that is supported by Milton Friedman. The model Monetary Reform Act that would create this new scheme is presented on their website. I have read the Act and am of the opinion that it does not address the core problems with our monetary arrangements. Their website is at: http://www.themoneymasters.com/
G. Edward Griffin, the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, has founded an organisation called Freedom Force International. He has analysed this Money Masters proposal and presents arguments opposing the solution recommended by them and supported by Milton Friedman. This can be found at this website: http://freedomforceinternational.org/
I believe that the Austrian economists have the correct economic and monetary theory that would launch the world into a new era of prosperity. One exponent of this theory is Professor Antal Fekete who has added new and profound insights to those of the founding Austrian economists. He does have some differences with the Mises Institute insofar far as Adam Smith's Real Bills doctrine is concerned because Ludwig von Mises himself disgreed with Smith on this point. Personally I agree with Fekete because in my own exploration of these issues I came to essentially the same conclusions as he has. The information necessary to study these questions further can to be found at:
1. The Mises Institute: http://www.mises.org/
2. Professor Fekete: http://www.professorfekete.com/default.asp
One politician who embraces and understands the Austrian economics is of course Dr. Ron Paul. His writings on these subjects can be found at: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
'government monetary management' is the only kind allowed by the U.S. Constitution.
G. Edward Griffin ("Freedom Force International") does not propose any reform legislation at all, even though his criticism of Pat Carmack's draft Monetary Reform Act is valid. [Actually, Griffin's articles credit William Still with writing the MRA draft legislation, but Still is apparently just the PR face of the draft Act. Attorney Carmack is the author of it.]
Theoretical economist Antal Fekete's ruminations are useless to us today, from a practical standpoint. The only lawful mechanism we have for restoring our currency and credit debacle is LEGISLATION (or constitutional amendments). Economists can theorise to the moon, but their theories won't help turn the ship around. That takes legislation. Even before that, it requires that Congress stop violating the law with impunity.
We can make them do that.
Ed Griffin complains about Carmack's draft MRA; insists that gold or silver backing is fundamental to avoiding further inflation/collapse of the USD. I agree, but Griffin proposes no legislation that's any better. If he has, I haven't seen it.
Griffin's bigger lacuna is that he apparently doesn't know that the responsibility for coining America's currency and regulating its value falls to the Congress under our system of law. That's the design of our system, whether Ed Griffin likes politicians or not...and whether you like 'government monetary management' or not!
None of us likes corrupt politicians; but we can drag them into the public square and demand to see what they're doing. Or we can impeach them, vote them out, or bring them home every Independence Day and set them up for criminal indictment right at home. Can we do that with the board of the Federal Reserve? So it's ironic that G. Edward Griffin -- great exposer of the Federal Reserve -- is against the Monetary Reform Act, that forces Congress to re-assume the duties that we gave it in the Constitution.
The Constitution's plan for monetary oversight is the best plan in human history -- when it is not violated. But Mr. Griffin would violate the Constitution, in order to save it.
Griffin is a sharp man and a patriot, to be sure. But with his "Freedom Force International" gig generating book sales for him, he nit-picks rather than offering solutions. Like every special interest lobby and non-profit think tank: if the problem ever goes away, so does the income stream...so let's re-package the problem constantly, but never provide a real solution!
Indonesia, Brazil, and Iraq have their own constitutional frameworks; we're not their policemen, and I doubt Mr. Griffin is their savior. But they're welcome to sign up for his Captain World Freedom thingie if they like.
Americans want to hammer out solutions to political corruption including the dastardly Federal Reserve and fractional-reserve banking scams. Thinking and discussing through such solutions in the public square is the right and duty of every American citizen...and the mission of Break The Matrix.
Let's work for solutions...for actual legislation. Mr. Carmack is making that attempt; Mr. Griffin is not. I should think that Carmack would welcome the constructive criticism and amendments of Griffin...or of any of you with knowledge of monetary policy.
The Monetary Reform Act is a great starting place, and its flaws can be amended. Yes, it should have a section on bimetallic specie backing for all US currency and Mr. Carmack should work through that; or I suppose other citizens will do that if he doesn't.
Still: the glass is half full; it's a great deal more helpful to pour more clean water in, than to spit in the glass.
Jeremiah,
Thanks for the links. I've been having just this type of discussion at our local newspaper blog, and these links will allow me to provide more proof, as if it was really needed, that we are a debtalist (yeah I made that word up) economy not a capitalist economy in our current state.
DanielC in SC
Supply side economics doesn't work with Corporate America bribing the government, along with all the special interests and a big government. This is not capitalism, but market manipulation, exploitation, and stealing the wealth of the middle and all classes, while pilftering our natural resources. I think the term Voo Doo Economics was Doublespeak.
I guess I would prefer to see demand side economics instead of greed and fraud. Ain't nothing trickling down to me and I am a tax slave.
Friedman was not a supply-sider of course.
How would you define that?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs