On Teabagging and Other Oral Servitudes

This is something that I posted to my facebook like a week ago, and I thought that I should have it here to, for reference:


First, I remain respectful and deferent to my leaders.

There were a few points of interest I found in this interview that I just couldn't let slip by without demonstrating my distaste for the philosophy of economic control that Mr. Obama seems to so obviously espouse (obvious to me anyway... you'll have to judge for yourself).
So here I put those points that he made in quotations, and following I put what I think he may mean (based on the fundamental assumptions of the philosophy from which his propositions follow). Hopefully I'm WAY off on my translations. Hopefully he was speaking a language that I don't really understand and I'm totally 100% wrong in my analysis. Because if I am not, perhaps we are destined to see another FDR rather than another Lincoln (to use the two presidents that Mr. Obama is being compared to). Who, even Berkeley social scientists (aka really really liberal) now conceed and agree, lengthened and possibly deepened the Great Depression with his "forward" focused economically retarded (and retarding) ideas like the Smoot-Hawley Act. Who cared less if things were working than with if we were ACTING!

I think that the first quote follows very naturally from here :)...


Kroft: "Are you in sync with Secretary Paulson in terms of how the $700 billion is being used? "

Mr Obama: ........"I think Hank (Paulson- Treasury Secretary) would be the first one to acknowledge that probably not everything that's been done has worked the way he had hoped it would work. But I'm less interested in looking backwards than I am in looking forwards."

Possible Translation:
Does it really matter if things work or not? I'm not interested in learning from history, anyway. That is not the way to change things.


Mr. Obama: "So it's my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can't be a blank check. So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like? "

Possible Translation:
I think that we need to give money to the auto industry. But we need to make sure that they are running their business the way that I want them to, rather than them copying the sucessful business models of, say, the Japanese auto makers profitably building cars on US soil. The way I want business to run is for joe-assembly-line-man, joe machinist, and joe banker to all have an equal voice in running the company. For them to have their completely uneducated opinions given as much weight as joe-business-degree-and-30

-years-of-sucessful-enterprise's opinoin. You see, any other way does not fit into my definition of "sustainable." Because, if my definition of the word was the bourgeous traditional version, then I would think that General Motors should cut their workforce by 40% by the start of this workweek and kick out the unions. And I certainly dont' think they should do that. Rather, I think that the American people should subsidize the wages of the $25/hr union auto workers. That is sustainable, and that is fair.


AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, MY FAVORITE :

Kroft: " Is there a point where just going to the Treasury Department and printing more of it (money) ceases to be an option?

Mr. Obama: "Well, look, I think what's interesting about the time that we're in right now is that you actually have a consensus among conservative Republican-leaning economists and liberal left-leaning economists. And the consensus is this: that we have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again, that we're gonna have to spend money now to stimulate the economy. And that we shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after. That short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession."

Possible Translation:
So that you are distracted from the real threat here, I'm going to use the term "deficit" rather than utter the more appropriate term "INFLATION" which we know is the inevitable and serious consequence that printing more money is PROVEN to cause. As you also may know, inflation can lead to a lower standard of living for all. Worst part about it is, as a consumer, you can't do anything about it.
But as I said before, I am not interested in looking back, or learning from history (or heading economic law). We need action, and danggit, act is what I'm going to do.
Also understand here that I say "Republican" leaning economists and "left" leaning economists, rather than "conservative" economists... because THOSE pesky "conservative" dudes (who follow the a priori style reason-based logic of the Austrian school of economics) all know that the whole system of Keynsian economics is fatally flawed. They certainly aren't included in this consensus.



Ok, thats all. Thanks for reading all the way to the bottom of this ridiculous note :)
If you saw the interview too, what did you think?

8 comments

Drew Landis wrote at 7:10am on November 17th, 2008 *sigh* i love you. i particularly like this: "Because, if my definition of the word was the bourgeous traditional version, then I would think that General Motors should cut their workforce by 40% by the start of this workweek and kick out the unions. And I certainly dont' think they should do that. Rather, I think that the American people should subsidize the wages of the $25/hr union auto workers. That is sustainable, and that is fair." Excellent analysis and phrasing. Report - Delete

Jeremy Bacher (Heartland Community College) wrote at 8:15am on November 17th, 2008 i shuddered a few times while reading this. I wish would have seen and am glad I didn't see this interview. Report - Delete

Clearview Pastor wrote at 11:29pm on November 17th, 2008 Well spoke(n)! Report - Delete

Hannah Landis wrote at 7:47am on November 18th, 2008 by the way i'm an idiot and smoot-hawley was Hoover (a Republican). BUT FDR was not economical astute enough to recognize the negative effects of the protectionist act, and left it in place for a long time. But there are plenty of examples of legislation that did originate in his administration. For instance the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which set the price as well and the allowed output of corn, cotton, dairy products, hogs, rice, tobacco, and wheat (Soviet-style). Today, there are many many people calling for protectionist measures mimicking Smoot-Hawley (ironically, most of these people are Republicans), but thankfully there are few (at least so far) calling for all out price controls on commodities mimicking the AAA. But there are a couple of reasons why I could see that coming. Notice the fall in the price of gas? All other commodities will eventually fall right along with it, if people continue to have to cut back on their consumption due to tightening pocketbooks. But if they fall "too far" then expect Democrats to start crying about the dairy farmers not making enough money. And proposing ways that we can prop up the price of milk. One would think that we have come too far in history to have to anticipate this type of legislation in America. But it turns out, we haven't. Delete

Hannah Landis wrote at 7:57pm on November 18th, 2008 Its so funny that I wrote the above this morning, because now I am finding all of these articles expressing concern about deflation. So, while I thought it would be awhile before we actually heard politicians crying out for ways to prop up prices (to prevent what they are going to call a "deflationary cycle") it's actually likely to happen sooner than I thought. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iYwB5yO5SxYP2KXGaD8TzRYofP8wD94HHQI00 http://mises.org/story/3219 Delete

Holly George (Washington) wrote at 11:40am yesterday did you know that obama used to take his family on nice drives in his car during really hot summer days, then turn off the a.c., roll up the windows, and fart? i found that quite shocking. Report - Delete

Hannah Landis wrote at 8:17pm I wonder what an Obama fart smell like? Prolly flowers. btw, I called it, yesterday Obama said that were gonna see a "deflationary cycle" and that we'll have to fight it! (too bad, as Japan knows, there is not much the govt can do to stem a deflationary cycle) Delete

Hannah Landis wrote at 8:25pm Furthermore, it is difficult to have a serious discussion about inflation/deflation because the terms are rarely consistently defined (especially deflation). For instance, Ben Bernanke is currently defining it as falling prices across the board, while the more traditional definition has always been contraction of the money/credit supply. If we use Bernanke definition, then ironically, it is possible to have both inflation AND deflation at the same time! If it is not a contraction of the money/credit SUPPLY but rather a contraction in demand, then I believe this is a strange possibility.