Do Best By Doing Nothing

It is ridiculous to say FDR caused the Great Depression. And it was precisely New Deal spending that turned the economy around. When FDR cut spending in an attempt to relieve the deficit, the economy crashed again. Renewed spending spurred new growth, and the entry to the war clenched the full recovery. To say FDR caused the Great Depression is revisionist history, and inaccurate.

I propose removing the impediments to enterprise.

"They" will call that "doing nothing".

Why?

Because they believe the economy must be managed by 'the government', and removing the impediments means reducing the management role of the government.

Is doing nothing about the recession better than reducing marginal tax rates? I propose removing the impediments to enterprise.

Let me fix that for you Vidyohs.

"Madame Pelosi expects you and me to conserve our carbon footprint by driving smaller cars and buying a bicycle pump to over-inflate our tires for better economy while so she and her hypocrite cohorts can waste tax payer dollars."

This not something I like to do on the Cafe even as a rare thing, but this is just to appropriate and I can not find a URL to connect to:

The people deciding about the how much the bailout will be, and who will decide how it is spent:

"Queen Nancy"




Remember the big flap about Sarah Palin's dresses?





Americans! Where are you? Are you awake? We haven't heard any comment on "Queen Madam" Pelosi's snit about having to ride home in the small private, economy jet that comes with the Speaker's job. Remember how Madame Pelosi was so aggravated that this little jet had to refuel while transporting her to California "every" week? Remember that she insisted on a luxurious 200 seat jet to fly her to California nonstop, instead?





Washington legislators who observed the Madam's Big Fat jet grinned with glee as Joe Biden informed everyone that Nancy's luxury Jet will require hard working American tax payers, to buy thousands of gallons of expensive jet fuel every week. She only works 3 days a week but her gas guzzler luxury jet flights home, to California , costs taxpayers $60,000 one way! As Joe noted, "Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday night", so there goes another $60,000.





Folks, that is $480,000 per month or an annual cost to taxpayers of $5,760,000. And she complains about the cost of the war? She could take the smaller jet which she says would cramp her style -- but since her flying in style takes precedence over war costs -- what the hell, eh?





Military families in this country do without while this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of our country, spends lavishly to fly herself and associates to and from California every week. That burns me!! How about you?





Madame Pelosi expects you and me to conserve our carbon footprint by driving smaller cars and buying a bicycle pump to over-inflate our tires for better economy while she and her hypocrite cohorts waste tax payer dollars.

Actually Lee Kelly, it was very logical. You don't know it, but what you are objecting to its redundancy, not whether the paragraph or thought was indeed illogical.

Mezz said:

"Logically it makes sense to let the market correct itself as each individual business knows best how to create efficiencies far better then a government official."

That sentence could have been correctly written as:

"Logically, let the market correct itself as each individual business knows best how to create efficiencies far better than a government official." One could say the "logically" is still redundant as anything else in about market correction would illogical; but, there are those who do not think like we do, so they need slapping upside the head.

or just as correctly:

"It makes sense to let the market correct itself as each individual business knows best how to create efficiencies far better than a government official." This would be my choice.

The "logically" connected to the "It makes sense" created a redundancy.

But, Lee, it was logical and it also made sense.

Next post will be brought to you by the number 8 and the letter W, stay tuned and we will right back after this........

Mezzanine,

I did not question your logic, but your use of the word 'logically'. There was nothing specially logical about what you wrote, and nor would it be illogical of someone to disagree. Logic is concerned with the validity of inference, not specific premises and conclusions.

Lee - those are fighting words. Questioning a man's logic, might as well be saying he has no balls!

Mezzanine,

90% of all sentences which begin with the word 'logically' have nothing to do with logic.

I should have put it this way:

Remember when we didn't know what Barack Obama really meant? Now we do.

We thought "spreading the wealth around" meant taking it from the rich to give to the poor. Now we know what it really meant, taking from the poor to give to the rich, on the theory that some of it just might come back to the poor.

Remember when we didn't know what Barack Obama really meant? Now we do. We thought "spreading the wealth around" meant taking it from the rich to give to the poor. Now we know what it really meant, giving to the richest.

Mr. Higgs, as always, has done a good job.

When people save or pay off debts, they exert a downward pressure on prices. Resources that were being used to produce consumable goods are then made available to invest. Although the amount of money available for banks to lend does not change (the so-called paradox of thrift), the buying power of borrowed money increases. In other words, even though nominal investment does not change, real investment does change i.e. resources are directed away from consumption and toward investment, because the buying power of borrowed money increases.

One of the resources that is saved, and made available for investment, is labour. That is why an increase in savings creates temporary unemployment--labour is being freed up for entrepreneurs to reallocate.

Unfortunately, the scale of malinvestment has been so great, the intervention of government so unpredictable, that few entrepreneurs know what to invest in. This is not a confidence problem, but a knowledge problem. A wrong decision made confidently is still a wrong decision.

The U.S. economy has embarked upon an prolonged and unsustainable growth path, but never before has it wondered so far off-course or for so long. The wrong turns and missed signals cannot be easily retraced, and now few people know how to get the economy back on track. Entrepreneurs and investors are stumped: what does the future have in store for the U.S. economy? How much more will the government intervene? What will happen to the dollar? Etc.

The savings are not being swiftly reallocated. But there is little the government can do to help except get out of the way. They are primarily responsible for the problem, and would better serve the economy by taking measures to ensure they never do repeat the same error.

None of this should be happening. As the real estate bubble began inflating, interest rates should have begun rising to reflect the increasing scarcity of resources available to borrow (i.e. savings). The bubble would have popped much sooner as the high interest rates encouraged saving and discouraged borrowing. The economy would not have travelled so far along an unsustainable growth path, and investors would more easily be able to find a way back from the wilderness.

That is my assessment at the moment.

If you've spent your whole life being taught/told/assured that your education, your personal insight, and your instincts are 'better' for the people than their own choices-- come on, they HAVE to intervene. To have access to the levers of power and not want to push them around, just a bit?

I mean the rabble, not the people. More like a mob of animals. A pack.

Logically it makes sense to let the market correct itself as each individual business knows best how to create efficiencies far better then a government official. However the people demand a pound of flesh, and the politicians will give them that.

Ah, Mr. Higgs. We've seen him before.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs-arch.html