WHY OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WILL FAIL ... And A Better Alternative

peaceandlove · 01-20-2009, 02:39 AM

Why Obama's Stimulus Plan Will Fail... And A Better Alternative
by Jake Towne

Source: http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Keynesian and Monetarist economic central planning always comes to a nasty end, as shown by the Austrian School's Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read and Ron Paul.

This essay will make three key points as to why Obama's stimulus plan will fail and then will suggest a much simpler plan that will not end in failure and should actually improve the situation. The first reason why Obama's central economic planners will fail is because they are too focused on full employment rather than full production. The second reason is that the American economy, or any economy, is far too complex for any central planning group. The third reason is that Obama's proposal of more stimulus spending is exactly what got us into this mess. I even submit to you that Obama's team has no idea how to even produce a pencil; in fact none of us do. Let me explain.

Essay Here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=3

Excerpt:
Why all this spending? It is because our government, central bankers, and almost all modern-day economists still subscribe to the benefits of government spending to ease downturns, which follows the teachings of Lord Keynes and Milton Friedman. However, this strategy is only a stalling tactic; it falls apart when the currency implodes. As Ron Paul warns, when the dollar dies so does our entire economy. I wrote more on this here "The End for the Dollar and all Fiat Currencies (1/5)". Unfortunately, our fractional reserve banking system is helplessly insolvent, as I proved in " Rioting at the Gates of Thermopylae," even going so far as to predict the breakdown of Citigroup, which just occurred.

My point is playing "Spenda" this time will likely not work; in fact, even if it does, this only means that the next downturn will be downright disastrous. Those who have studied the Austrian School's Misesian boom-bust cycles are already aware that all depressions and recessions in America in the last hundred years were all brought on by inflationary (usually war) spending, then resolved by government spending, and each aftermath has pushed the dollar closer and closer to its demise....

http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

777 The Great Work · 01-20-2009, 03:01 AM

I feel we extend our slumber by thinking there are two plans.Healthcare , money,gas, education and war are all smoke screens that conceal the divine plan of moving from duality to synthesis. The external wedding planners seek to unite the east and west in order to give birth to their king, and we seek to unite the east and west hemispheres of our brain to give birth to the Christ within. Both are Ordo Ab Chao.

UnoRaza · 01-20-2009, 05:27 AM

Of course Obama's CFR/banker backers are planning to place our grand-children's grandchildren into debt today.

They live on our money; it's their feed and without it they will wither.

That's why throughout history, back to the Roman days, those that get in the way of the Masters of Money get DEAD.
(It's also how they bribe our governments and tax us into oblivion via 'inflation', control the economy etc. etc.)

Good point, if we do not take heed of Ron Paul's advice and get rid of these leaches we're doomed to keep paying our taxes straight to the bankers.

How many know not ONE dollar in federal taxes goes to run the government? It goes to the masters of money that Jesus too tried to put out of business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peaceandlove

Why Obama's Stimulus Plan Will Fail... And A Better Alternative
by Jake Towne

Source: http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Keynesian and Monetarist economic central planning always comes to a nasty end, as shown by the Austrian School's Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read and Ron Paul.

This essay will make three key points as to why Obama's stimulus plan will fail and then will suggest a much simpler plan that will not end in failure and should actually improve the situation. The first reason why Obama's central economic planners will fail is because they are too focused on full employment rather than full production. The second reason is that the American economy, or any economy, is far too complex for any central planning group. The third reason is that Obama's proposal of more stimulus spending is exactly what got us into this mess. I even submit to you that Obama's team has no idea how to even produce a pencil; in fact none of us do. Let me explain.

Essay Here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=3

Excerpt:
Why all this spending? It is because our government, central bankers, and almost all modern-day economists still subscribe to the benefits of government spending to ease downturns, which follows the teachings of Lord Keynes and Milton Friedman. However, this strategy is only a stalling tactic; it falls apart when the currency implodes. As Ron Paul warns, when the dollar dies so does our entire economy. I wrote more on this here "The End for the Dollar and all Fiat Currencies (1/5)". Unfortunately, our fractional reserve banking system is helplessly insolvent, as I proved in " Rioting at the Gates of Thermopylae," even going so far as to predict the breakdown of Citigroup, which just occurred.

My point is playing "Spenda" this time will likely not work; in fact, even if it does, this only means that the next downturn will be downright disastrous. Those who have studied the Austrian School's Misesian boom-bust cycles are already aware that all depressions and recessions in America in the last hundred years were all brought on by inflationary (usually war) spending, then resolved by government spending, and each aftermath has pushed the dollar closer and closer to its demise....

peaceandlove · 01-20-2009, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnoRaza

How many know not ONE dollar in federal taxes goes to run the government? It goes to the masters of money that Jesus too tried to put out of business.

Bless you UnoRaza and
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

01-20-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnoRaza

Good point, if we do not take heed of Ron Paul's advice and get rid of these leaches we're doomed to keep paying our taxes straight to the bankers.

How many know not ONE dollar in federal taxes goes to run the government? It goes to the masters of money that Jesus too tried to put out of business.

There's always tax revolt.

About Keynsian economics, there was an article in the local paper recently, by a professor of Religious Studies. He said Keynes is 'half-understood.'

"According to Keynes, the Great Depression was avoidable. But, swift action to meet the crisis was prevented by the flawed philosophy of Conservative governments in Britain and the U. S. This philosophy was based on a false view of "the market" that failed to see its human dimensions and substituted theory for practical action....

"Most important of all, Keynes stressed the need for a society to be based on justice and vision. Nevertheless, he was ignored until the crisis became so bad that his arguments could no longer be rejected. With the publication of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) Keynes laid the foundation for the economic decisions that assured postwar prosperity.

"Wasteful deficits are bad, but those that are used for investment in productive activities, or rebuilding infrastructure, just like a mortgage, are not only good but absolutely necessary in times of economic crisis."
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...638/story.html

peaceandlove · 01-25-2009, 03:19 AM

Don't look to Keynes
Michael Costa | November 14, 2008

Source: campaignforliberty.com

Article from: The Australian Business with the Wall Street Journal
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-30538,00.html

MOST economists would agree with the proposition that there is no such thing as a free lunch. All activities incur costs in terms of resources that have to be paid for directly or in terms of other opportunities forgone. This proposition is a fundamental insight of modern economics.

But although most economists would acknowledge the theoretical validity of this proposition, not all believe it to be true in practice.

Traditional Keynesian macro-economics is the theoretical refuge of economists who continue to believe economic magic can occur by the government waving its fiscal wand.

This year's Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, is in this category. Many were surprised when he won this year's prize. Krugman has become the pin-up boy of the US liberal Left for his attacks on the Bush administration and his advocacy of greater government involvement in the economy. To be fair to Krugman, his early work on strategic trade theory in particular is as worthy of recognition as the work of some other recent prizewinners. Whether there should be a Nobel prize for an imprecise social science such as economics is another question.

In a recent column for The New York Times, Krugman resurrects several old Keynesian chestnuts to argue that consumers have capitulated to bad economic times by pulling in their belts and adjusting their consumption patterns to tighter economic circumstances.

He claims that individual virtue has become public vice and "attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everybody worse off".

This, of course, is the classic Keynesian paradox of thrift, which requires corrective action from monetary authorities. Interest rates need to be cut and the economy stimulated to avoid a recession.

Krugman goes on to argue that the US in particular also faces the other classic Keynesian problem, the liquidity trap. Monetary policy alone cannot solve the problems. Further reductions in interest rates are unlikely to have a positive effect on the economy. He writes that "the financial crisis has made (Federal Reserve) policy largely irrelevant for much of the private sector" and "efforts to bail out the financial system, even if they work, won't do more than slightly mitigate the problem".

The solution? You guessed it: "a major fiscal stimulus" that should take "the form of actual government spending rather than rebate cheques that consumers probably wouldn't spend". Now, Krugman is not the only prominent economist advocating a fiscal stimulus for the US economy. Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers also have argued for a fiscal stimulus.

Article Continues Here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-30538,00.html

Source: http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

01-20-2009, 02:39 AM	#1
peaceandlove Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Turtle Island Posts: 2,776	WHY OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WILL FAIL ... And A Better Alternative Why Obama's Stimulus Plan Will Fail... And A Better Alternative by Jake Towne Source: http://www.campaignforliberty.com Keynesian and Monetarist economic central planning always comes to a nasty end, as shown by the Austrian School's Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read and Ron Paul. This essay will make three key points as to why Obama's stimulus plan will fail and then will suggest a much simpler plan that will not end in failure and should actually improve the situation. The first reason why Obama's central economic planners will fail is because they are too focused on full employment rather than full production. The second reason is that the American economy, or any economy, is far too complex for any central planning group. The third reason is that Obama's proposal of more stimulus spending is exactly what got us into this mess. I even submit to you that Obama's team has no idea how to even produce a pencil; in fact none of us do. Let me explain. Essay Here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=3 Excerpt: Why all this spending? It is because our government, central bankers, and almost all modern-day economists still subscribe to the benefits of government spending to ease downturns, which follows the teachings of Lord Keynes and Milton Friedman. However, this strategy is only a stalling tactic; it falls apart when the currency implodes. As Ron Paul warns, when the dollar dies so does our entire economy. I wrote more on this here "The End for the Dollar and all Fiat Currencies (1/5)". Unfortunately, our fractional reserve banking system is helplessly insolvent, as I proved in " Rioting at the Gates of Thermopylae," even going so far as to predict the breakdown of Citigroup, which just occurred. My point is playing "Spenda" this time will likely not work; in fact, even if it does, this only means that the next downturn will be downright disastrous. Those who have studied the Austrian School's Misesian boom-bust cycles are already aware that all depressions and recessions in America in the last hundred years were all brought on by inflationary (usually war) spending, then resolved by government spending, and each aftermath has pushed the dollar closer and closer to its demise.... http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html Last edited by peaceandlove; 02-03-2009 at 12:27 AM.

01-20-2009, 03:01 AM	#2
777 The Great Work Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: At the doors of perception Posts: 2,135	Re: WHY OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WILL FAIL ... And A Better Alternative I feel we extend our slumber by thinking there are two plans.Healthcare , money,gas, education and war are all smoke screens that conceal the divine plan of moving from duality to synthesis. The external wedding planners seek to unite the east and west in order to give birth to their king, and we seek to unite the east and west hemispheres of our brain to give birth to the Christ within. Both are Ordo Ab Chao. Last edited by 777 The Great Work; 01-20-2009 at 03:24 AM.

01-25-2009, 03:19 AM	#6
peaceandlove Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Turtle Island Posts: 2,776	Re: WHY OBAMA'S STIMULUS PLAN WILL FAIL ... And A Better Alternative Don't look to Keynes Michael Costa \| November 14, 2008 Source: campaignforliberty.com Article from: The Australian Business with the Wall Street Journal http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-30538,00.html MOST economists would agree with the proposition that there is no such thing as a free lunch. All activities incur costs in terms of resources that have to be paid for directly or in terms of other opportunities forgone. This proposition is a fundamental insight of modern economics. But although most economists would acknowledge the theoretical validity of this proposition, not all believe it to be true in practice. Traditional Keynesian macro-economics is the theoretical refuge of economists who continue to believe economic magic can occur by the government waving its fiscal wand. This year's Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, is in this category. Many were surprised when he won this year's prize. Krugman has become the pin-up boy of the US liberal Left for his attacks on the Bush administration and his advocacy of greater government involvement in the economy. To be fair to Krugman, his early work on strategic trade theory in particular is as worthy of recognition as the work of some other recent prizewinners. Whether there should be a Nobel prize for an imprecise social science such as economics is another question. In a recent column for The New York Times, Krugman resurrects several old Keynesian chestnuts to argue that consumers have capitulated to bad economic times by pulling in their belts and adjusting their consumption patterns to tighter economic circumstances. He claims that individual virtue has become public vice and "attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everybody worse off". This, of course, is the classic Keynesian paradox of thrift, which requires corrective action from monetary authorities. Interest rates need to be cut and the economy stimulated to avoid a recession. Krugman goes on to argue that the US in particular also faces the other classic Keynesian problem, the liquidity trap. Monetary policy alone cannot solve the problems. Further reductions in interest rates are unlikely to have a positive effect on the economy. He writes that "the financial crisis has made (Federal Reserve) policy largely irrelevant for much of the private sector" and "efforts to bail out the financial system, even if they work, won't do more than slightly mitigate the problem". The solution? You guessed it: "a major fiscal stimulus" that should take "the form of actual government spending rather than rebate cheques that consumers probably wouldn't spend". Now, Krugman is not the only prominent economist advocating a fiscal stimulus for the US economy. Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers also have argued for a fiscal stimulus. Article Continues Here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-30538,00.html Source: http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html Last edited by peaceandlove; 02-03-2009 at 12:26 AM.