Wisdom from Megan

That article is amazing. And I say that as someone who doesn't usually care for Megan's writing.

what a fabulous article

Megan also believes that "finance is different," and so the bailout is justified. She's a fair weather free-marketeer. That's wrong.

Prof Roberts,

Thanks for this one. Megan said what a lot of people need to hear and take to heart. I am going to forward it on to my e-mail list in the hopes it gets wider distribution and maybe reaches a few of those that need to hear the message.

The genie is out of the bottle on American lifestyles and like all genies he can't be put back.

I spent the years between 1959 and 1979 with people that had relatively low incomes and who in general tried to live within those means. Plus it is difficult to drag a lot of toys when bouncing around the world from year to year.

When I retired in 1979 to the SLC, Utah area I discovered a world of people who invested in two or more of the expensive toys available to people (jet skis, ATVs, large homes, new autos every two years) and who also carried a mountain of debt. Because so many had high paying union mine jobs and/or guaranteed positions at one of the several government installations in that area, everyone thought they were set for life.

Myself, I looked at what was happening in the world and came to the conclusion that Americans had the day coming when they were going to have to accept that effective and efficient global competition was going to force them to live with less on their plate. At least until new methods of producing wealth replaced the old. It was obvious that the competition had become more skilled and ambitious at producing the old in inexpensive quantities.

Now the belt tightening has come for a lot of people, and in my view the choice is not to bitch and whine about getting back what was lost, but to spend that energy in finding new fields of endeavor to tap.

I feel sad when I hear on my radio a country song that has the lyrics, "Give me my old job back", written from the standpoint of someone who has been replaced by automation.

I can not understand the viewpoint of the writer or the sympathizers that compels them to want a job where they are no longer needed. To me that is like saying, "Give me a living!", which translates into welfare.

When the RR companies replaced the conductors, back in the 80s, with computers that performed the same function, I was surprised at how hard the union fought to prevent the RR companies from replacing the conductors. There is no shame in living socialist, I guess.

In the campaign just ended, Obama was on the record voting to end torture, and McCain voted to reserve the right to torture for the CIA.

That was then. This is now.

I regret my error.

Well I thought you had a decent post right up until that last sentence.

Apparently you confused my last post with the support of torture?

I just asked a simple question about Obama. It in no way condoned Bush. Perhaps you can't distinguish the difference?

Time will tell whether Obama and company will do anything about it. Eavesdrop without warrant, imprisonment without trial, and torture are wrong regardless of the name of the President who gives the orders. Torture is worse than mistaken tax policy. It's worse than bailing out a failing industry. A government that reserves the right to crush the testicles of an economics professor's children "if it has a reason to think it necessary" is an unlimited government, even if it makes tax cuts permanent.

In the campaign just ended, Obama was on the record voting to end torture, and McCain voted to reserve the right to torture for the CIA. Bastiat writes that torture is unlikely to be effective; he does not suggest that it is effective only if it is administered by the secret police. Perhaps you consider this an omission on his part?

"The ability of the government to eavesdrop without warrant, to imprison indefinitely without trial, and to torture also contributes significantly to political dysfunction. If only Bastiat had written an essay against torture, his wisdom could be channeled by minarchists today!"

So what is Obama and company going to do about it?

My guess is the Democrats only real problem with what Bush and Co. were doing is that it was not them doing it.

The Fed buys Treasury securities in open market operations. In practice, the "open market" is a small group of dealers. A former CEO of one of these dealers is the Treasury Secretary, so it seems largely a distinction without a difference.

The ability of the government to eavesdrop without warrant, to imprison indefinitely without trial, and to torture also contributes significantly to political dysfunction. If only Bastiat had written an essay against torture, his wisdom could be channeled by minarchists today!

(Bastiat on the dubious efficacy of torture)

Treasury doesn't borrow directly from the Fed, Only banks do. Banks buy treasuries and then take it to the Fed. Same effect, but there is a middle man.

And when the Treasury "borrows" from the Fed, it doesn't really borrow so much as it creates money to spend it.