Thursday, October 16, 2008

Joe The Plumber

Redistribution of Wealth is Socialism. Period.

Yaron Brook, says this:
The Treasury Department, as part of its ongoing assumption of control over the financial industry, is preparing to inject cash into U.S. banks in exchange for preferred shares of bank stock.

“Are we all socialists now?” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Have we learned nothing from the devastation that socialist policies wrought worldwide in the twentieth century? Government intervention distorts markets and causes economic dislocations, no matter whether Uncle Sam controls private companies by regulation or assumes public ownership outright.

“A crisis doesn’t transform poison into medicine. Over decades, government manipulation of money, credit, and mortgages poisoned this economy and left it dangerously weak. Now Hank Paulson and his comrades are hooking up IV tubes filled with more of the same poison--bailouts, loan guarantees, cheap money, and more burdensome regulations--and hoping we will lie still and trust in their cure.

“But the real cure is capitalism, not more doses of socialism. We should act quickly to put government in its place, by rolling back the interventionist measures that caused the present emergency. Government’s proper role is to punish fraud and enforce contracts, not to own and manage the economy. We cannot achieve financial health unless we are willing to free the markets.”
Unfortunately, the Bush administration, which has long ago totally abandoned true Conservative ideals, has most definitely set this country up for what is about to come. A McCain administration promises "Socialist-lite". An Obama administration would be Socialist. Either way, we will be seeing tons more government spending and tons more government expansion. They will be bankrupting every American into government dependence. The interesting thing is that once one is dependent, there is no incentive to break out of that dependence, and the programs which "help you" are also meant to keep you dependent. We need to stop thinking about how government should "give us stuff" and instead about how we can help ourselves.

Since we have been "so successful " in fighting "wars" from the "war on drugs", to the "war on poverty" to the "war on terror" - Look to see, very soon, the shift to a "war on greed" or a "war on corporatism" or a "war on capitalism" as we wend our way through this financial crisis.

This financial crisis was manufactured by the "universal housing" programs designed to put people in houses they could not afford. Yes, corporations and their CEO's were greedy, and they ended up ruining their well established companies and reputations, but the price to pay was their ruination. Government is now not allowing them to fail and/or ultimately be gobbled up by others in the private sector who might do a much better job. Instead, we are seeing the government move in to take over. It is interesting to see the timing of this all before our national elections and after China announced on September 25, that they would be freezing credit to the United States. It all sounds so very oddly "convenient".

With every move the US government makes to "fix things" they are met with more unease on Wall Street. There appears to me now to be a shift in the investment strategies of many to move from living and doing business in a capitalist financial market to one of a highly regulated and nationalized financial market. Sure we had regulation in our "free market" but now the regulation will be on steroids, even to the point of dictating how much money CEO's can be paid by their own companies or boards of directors. The stock market is trying to assess where we are all going. This is no accident that this comes before November 4th elections.

Barack Obama is a Socialist along with his pals Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. If this triumvirate hold the reins of power in the next 4 years there will be Change alright, but it will be Change that robs the wealth from those who have worked and took risks and gives it to those who have not worked or taken risks. We already have seen historically that Socialism doesn't work. It stifles the incentive to grow rich. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, say this bailout move is distasteful but that they have to do it... hogwash. They don't have to do anything that they don't want to do... the fact is that they have made out very well in this deal as it has given them more power then they had before.

As for Joe the Plumber, he and millions of Americans will be the ones ultimately holding the bag - as we are forced to give up the fruits of our labor to pay for everyone else, and "spread the wealth". The question remains, what happens when there are no more rich people, and no one to take the risks or to grow a company? What happens when we are all on the receiving end of government bailouts? After all, as taxpayers aren't we all really "the government"?

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.” - Ronald Reagan


Suzanne said...

Yup - socialism here we come. Why are we not rioting in the streets?

Kim said...

I love Yaron Brook! Finally people are paying attention to the third option. Not "let's regulate and remove a lot of personal choice" and "let's regulate and remove a little of personal choice," it's "let's leave businesses and people alone to face the consequences and rewards of their choices."

Anonymous said...

Yes, redistribution of the wealth is socialism. After all, the wealthy are rich because they are worthy, meritorious and work so much harder & smarter than a middle/working class schlub. The huge, growing disparity in in money between CEOs & average workers (despite American worker productivity) is simply because CEOs deserve it and workers don't. It IS hard work to run the economy into the ground and have the average taxpayers pick up the tab.

Judy Aron said...

Sorry Anonymous - nice try, but your reasons as to why the wealthy are rich are obviously taken from a page out of Communist and anti-business ideology.

There are plenty of wealthy big businessmen who wouldn't have dreamed of doing what these morons at AIG etc. did. In fact, they are the ones with the healthy companies who will survive this economy and help keep many many workers employed. How about applauding them for their good work and the risks they take?

I think that those CEO's from AIG etc., should go to jail for their fraudulent behavior (fixing their books, lying about the state of their companies etc.) - but so should the legislators that prompted them and encouraged them to take very bad risks. (Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, etc.)

Your assertion that "the wealthy are rich because they are worthy, meritorious and work so much harder & smarter than a middle/working class schlub" is just plain nonsense and you know it.

Let me clue you into something: CEO's get huge money because their boards of directors allow for such stupid compensation. The average taxpayers pick up the tab - not because the CEO's are overly compensated for ruining their businesses but because government allows such nonsense as taxpayer bailouts. This was all born out of the notion of "universal housing" - a very bad public policy.

If government allowed business to fail - perhaps businesses wouldn't spend stupidly and destroy their companies in the process, and also if government didn't give them incentives to make bad business choices perhaps they wouldn't be so willing and apt to do so.

No one is saying that workers aren't deserving - or even that they are not exploited - but let's face the fact that without these companies the workers would have NO jobs at all.

By the way - it isn't really your judgement call as to whether someone deserves their wealth or inheritance or not, and people who are poor do not automatically deserve anything either.

Socialism is born of the notion of entitlement. With that said, perhaps you'd like/appreciate it if everyone quit their job and moved in with you? After all, aren't they also entitled to enjoy what you have?

As I see it, we have forgotten the function of government - and it is not the function of government to provide housing or healthcare or guaranteed wages. The function of government is to protect it's citizens, not to provide everything for them. It should create an environment where they can provide for themselves.

Sorry but the money I make I should be able to keep - and if I decide to share it or not then that is my business - not yours, or the government's, or anyone else's.

I left my parent's home when I got married - I don't need the government to be my mommy and give me an allowance and tell me what to do.

Silly rabbit.. Socialism is for kids, not for independent adults.