Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
The Ghosts Of '38
Politics: After their rout Tuesday in key state elections, Democrats would be wise to take a lesson from history. No, we're not talking 1994, when the GOP took back Congress after two years of Clinton. We're talking 1938.
That little-remembered year during the depths of the Great Depression was one of the most edifying in electoral history. With FDR in the White House, and still very popular, a rogue Congress with radical ideas embarked on a series of legislative initiatives that helped push a recovering economy back into depression.
The result: Democrats lost 80 seats in the 1938 election, after gaining seats in 1930, 1932, 1934 and 1936.
How did this happen? As Amity Shlaes notes in her history of the Depression, "The Forgotten Man," Roosevelt believed less competition and high wages would heal the economy. Aided by Congress, he went about engineering those two things with a vengeance, trebling the size of the federal government in less than a decade.
At the time, such drastic action may have seemed warranted. Within three years of the 1929 crash, GDP had fallen nearly a third and a fourth of the U.S. work force was idle. Even so, the economy appeared to stabilize in 1934 and 1935, and in 1936, Democrats won landslides in both Congress and the presidency.
What happened next is a tale of overreach and hubris — one that holds lessons for today's Democrats.
It starts with a series of far-reaching changes to the economy that FDR initiated after entering office in 1933. They included the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which slapped new taxes on farm goods and forced prices to go higher, and the National Industrial Recovery Act, which created business cartels, set prices and imposed more than 500 "codes" governing prices, wages and workweeks.
Both the NIRA (1935) and AAA (1936) were found unconstitutional. But they set the tone for economic tinkering. In a 2007 landmark study, economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian calculated that without these restrictive policies, the economy would have recovered in 1936 — seven years before it actually did recover.
Conditions only got worse in 1936 and 1937. Worried about budget deficits and the possibility of inflation, the Fed contracted the money supply. As it did, the newly enacted Wagner Act raised labor costs, encouraging many companies to lay off workers. Those who still had jobs noticed that their paychecks had shrunk, as Social Security withholding kicked in for the first time ever.
The Roosevelt Democrats also unveiled a 5% tax on corporate dividends, and raised the top income tax rate to 90% from 63%.
As today, anti-business rhetoric was rife. FDR called businessmen "economic royalists." Congress imposed new taxes on corporate earnings and put more restrictions on the stock market.
By 1937, notes the Mackinac Center for Public Policy's study "Great Myths of the Great Depression," the economy had scored a first — a "depression within a depression." Real output fell in 1938 by 6%, as business investment shrank by a third.
Democrats are following the same playbook today, spending wildly, trying to raise taxes and imposing government control over vast swaths of the U.S. economy. They'd be wise to back off. If they don't, 2010 could turn into a repeat of 1938.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
True or False
A very good friend asked me which part of the account below is not true. I invite readers of this blog to refute any part of it with evidence.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Global Warming
Here, Robert P. Murphy provides a wealth of useful links and his usual incisive insight and analysis into the world's largest, most significant, hypothesized externality --- CO2 induced global warming. I say "hypothesized" because I am not persuaded that anything like all the science is in on the issue. And even if it were, I am completely certain that all the economics is not in on the issue.
As all students of ECON 101 will likely recall, a negative externality is a cost borne by someone who had no choice in the action that generated the cost. Economic thinking teaches us that resources will be used inefficiently when significant externalities prevail. That's because decisions about how to use scarce resources will not take account of all the costs (or all the benefits) that arise from using scarce resources in particular ways. The world is full of negative externalities (and positive externalities, too).
For example, if I start a pig farming operation next door to your home, the stench will likely be a cost you bear, even though you had no choice about whether I would go into the pig farming business or not. Moreover, since I'm not bearing the cost of the stench, the cost doesn't affect my decision about pig farming. Without some way of internalizing the stench cost, with voluntary exchange alone, we will end up using too many scarce resources for pig farming and not enough scarce resources for other valuable activities. With just a little thought, you can generate endless examples of negative and positive externalities.
Education is probably the easiest example of a positive externality. I benefit when your child is educated, even though I have no part in the choice of how much education and what quality of education your child will get. If that externality is not somehow internalized, with voluntary exchange alone, we will end up using too few scarce resources to educate children.
Standard economic thinking about externalities teaches us that externalities could be internalized if all resources were owned by someone, and if transactions costs of negotiating contracts to use scarce resources were zero (read about the Coase theorem here). Problem is, all resources are not owned by some one and transactions costs are not zero.
So far, that fact has led any number of people to conclude that we should all consent to government coercing us to do whatever a small number of people say we should do about any significant externality. Lovers of liberty and Austrian economists like me immediately reject that idea.
But in 2008, a majority of Americans decided to elect a Congress and a President who evidently don't love liberty all that much. As a result, we may get a cap-and-trade law that enriches Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi while the rest of us get to endure much higher electricity bills. But never mind that, let's get back to Murphy's excellent article and the issues at stake.
The hypothesis that global warming is mostly due to CO2 emissions is definitely a hypothesis about the world's largest ever externality. Incidentally, we have approximately 6.7 billion people who are CO2 emitters all around the globe. We also have about a gazillion production processes that emit CO2 or cause more CO2 to be emitted by using the scarce resources called energy, the most famous being coal-fired power plants.
If CO2 is actually a pollutant, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now claims, and if burning fossil fuels really does produce the world's largest negative externality, then you, my friend, are a polluter --- and you are imposing external costs on the rest of us by continuing to choose to breath.
One of a few things must be true. Either there is no God, or CO2 is not the scourge of humankind, or God has a really twisted sense of humor.
Whether you believe the globe is now warming over a long, sustained, and accelerating trend; and whether you believe that CO2 emissions generated by humans (either by breathing or by burning fossil fuels) is the chief culprit; and whether you believe the science is all in on the issue; and whether you believe that the future for humans will be catastrophic if we don't quit emitting so much CO2 into the atmosphere --- or not --- you will benefit from reading Murphy's article and by reading all the links he so thoughtfully supplies.
I propose that we all take a deep breath, step back a bit, and quit throwing political and ideological bombs about global warming. Let's get the science all in --- and if you think it is all in, you just haven't read enough yet; let's get the economics all in --- I'm almost certain you haven't read enough about the economics of the issue yet; neither have I; and for sure, let's get the politicians and the political maneuvering all out --- right now, the politics of global warming is about all we're getting.
As all students of ECON 101 will likely recall, a negative externality is a cost borne by someone who had no choice in the action that generated the cost. Economic thinking teaches us that resources will be used inefficiently when significant externalities prevail. That's because decisions about how to use scarce resources will not take account of all the costs (or all the benefits) that arise from using scarce resources in particular ways. The world is full of negative externalities (and positive externalities, too).
For example, if I start a pig farming operation next door to your home, the stench will likely be a cost you bear, even though you had no choice about whether I would go into the pig farming business or not. Moreover, since I'm not bearing the cost of the stench, the cost doesn't affect my decision about pig farming. Without some way of internalizing the stench cost, with voluntary exchange alone, we will end up using too many scarce resources for pig farming and not enough scarce resources for other valuable activities. With just a little thought, you can generate endless examples of negative and positive externalities.
Education is probably the easiest example of a positive externality. I benefit when your child is educated, even though I have no part in the choice of how much education and what quality of education your child will get. If that externality is not somehow internalized, with voluntary exchange alone, we will end up using too few scarce resources to educate children.
Standard economic thinking about externalities teaches us that externalities could be internalized if all resources were owned by someone, and if transactions costs of negotiating contracts to use scarce resources were zero (read about the Coase theorem here). Problem is, all resources are not owned by some one and transactions costs are not zero.
So far, that fact has led any number of people to conclude that we should all consent to government coercing us to do whatever a small number of people say we should do about any significant externality. Lovers of liberty and Austrian economists like me immediately reject that idea.
But in 2008, a majority of Americans decided to elect a Congress and a President who evidently don't love liberty all that much. As a result, we may get a cap-and-trade law that enriches Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi while the rest of us get to endure much higher electricity bills. But never mind that, let's get back to Murphy's excellent article and the issues at stake.
The hypothesis that global warming is mostly due to CO2 emissions is definitely a hypothesis about the world's largest ever externality. Incidentally, we have approximately 6.7 billion people who are CO2 emitters all around the globe. We also have about a gazillion production processes that emit CO2 or cause more CO2 to be emitted by using the scarce resources called energy, the most famous being coal-fired power plants.
If CO2 is actually a pollutant, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now claims, and if burning fossil fuels really does produce the world's largest negative externality, then you, my friend, are a polluter --- and you are imposing external costs on the rest of us by continuing to choose to breath.
One of a few things must be true. Either there is no God, or CO2 is not the scourge of humankind, or God has a really twisted sense of humor.
Whether you believe the globe is now warming over a long, sustained, and accelerating trend; and whether you believe that CO2 emissions generated by humans (either by breathing or by burning fossil fuels) is the chief culprit; and whether you believe the science is all in on the issue; and whether you believe that the future for humans will be catastrophic if we don't quit emitting so much CO2 into the atmosphere --- or not --- you will benefit from reading Murphy's article and by reading all the links he so thoughtfully supplies.
I propose that we all take a deep breath, step back a bit, and quit throwing political and ideological bombs about global warming. Let's get the science all in --- and if you think it is all in, you just haven't read enough yet; let's get the economics all in --- I'm almost certain you haven't read enough about the economics of the issue yet; neither have I; and for sure, let's get the politicians and the political maneuvering all out --- right now, the politics of global warming is about all we're getting.
How Long Do We Have?
A most excellent friend sent this along to me. Some readers will have seen some of this before, but I think that Professor Olson's data is especially interesting.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University Of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic Some 2,000 years Earlier:
'A Democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A Democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
' From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 presidential election:
• Number of States won by: Democrats: 19; Republicans: 29
• Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
• Population Of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
• Murder Rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is somewhere between the complacency and apathy phases of Professor Tyler's sequence for democracies, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the governmental dependency phase.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University Of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic Some 2,000 years Earlier:
'A Democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A Democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
' From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 presidential election:
• Number of States won by: Democrats: 19; Republicans: 29
• Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
• Population Of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
• Murder Rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is somewhere between the complacency and apathy phases of Professor Tyler's sequence for democracies, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the governmental dependency phase.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Send A Message
Congressman John Fleming (Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).
Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his petition (very simple --- takes less than a minute). I have immediately done just that by going here:
The item appears under "Express Your Opinion" at the top, center of the home page.
Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!
If Congress forces a new health plan on the American people, Congress should have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families. What do you think?
Pass this on to you friends and neighbors if you are of a like mind
Can Capitalism Survive
Matt McCaffrey offers here an interesting overview of Joseph Schumpeter's thesis that the success of capitalism is the very genesis of the destruction of capitalism. McCaffrey's article will be interesting to many readers of this blog, and a bit tedious to others.
I am not fond of the term "capitalism" because it carries so much negative baggage for so many people, due to their general ignorance of economics and philosophy, and due to their reliance on second- and third-hand accounts of what capitalism is and second- and third-hand accounts of why capitalism is good or bad.
For me, the very essence of capitalism is voluntary exchange. Any form of human interaction that is not mutually voluntary is immoral. That conclusion follows from the manifest immorality of compelling another human --- through force or deceit --- to the will of another human. As Kant put it, humans are ends, not means to ends.
Though shalt not compel; period. Voluntary exchange does not compel, hence, capitalism does not compel. It follows that capitalism is moral and any other form of social interaction is immoral.
Capitalism just is voluntary exchange. It is nothing more nor less. Those who oppose capitalism oppose human liberty and freedom. I propose that those who oppose human liberty and freedom are immoral, regardless of the end they hold out as the warrant for their compulsion of others.
Can voluntary exchange survive? Among us today are many working overtime to bring about the demise of voluntary exchange. Will they succeed? I propose that their temporary success will be the genesis of the survival of capitalism. I think that Schumpeter missed that idea.
I am not fond of the term "capitalism" because it carries so much negative baggage for so many people, due to their general ignorance of economics and philosophy, and due to their reliance on second- and third-hand accounts of what capitalism is and second- and third-hand accounts of why capitalism is good or bad.
For me, the very essence of capitalism is voluntary exchange. Any form of human interaction that is not mutually voluntary is immoral. That conclusion follows from the manifest immorality of compelling another human --- through force or deceit --- to the will of another human. As Kant put it, humans are ends, not means to ends.
Though shalt not compel; period. Voluntary exchange does not compel, hence, capitalism does not compel. It follows that capitalism is moral and any other form of social interaction is immoral.
Capitalism just is voluntary exchange. It is nothing more nor less. Those who oppose capitalism oppose human liberty and freedom. I propose that those who oppose human liberty and freedom are immoral, regardless of the end they hold out as the warrant for their compulsion of others.
Can voluntary exchange survive? Among us today are many working overtime to bring about the demise of voluntary exchange. Will they succeed? I propose that their temporary success will be the genesis of the survival of capitalism. I think that Schumpeter missed that idea.
Monday, November 2, 2009
SuperFreakonomics & Global Warming
WSJ columnist Bret Stephens offers here a great summary of SuperFreakonomics' analysis of global warming and what to do about it. Al Gore won't like this a bit, of course, since it gets into his pocket.
The Road to Serfdom
The WSJ reports here that Pelosi has told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare.
In other words, what most Americans want doesn't matter. The anointed one intends to have it his way, and the majority in Congress is evidently willing to become the minority to make it happen. And why not. The Democrats know that once an entitlement begins, it never goes away. They also know that once in place, entitlement programs always grow.
America is at a serious crossroads. The most profound issue at stake is not about health care; ObamaCare is just the camel's nose in the tent. The profound issue is state control and socialism versus liberty and voluntary exchange.
Are we really prepared to give up our liberty and income to go down this road? Lots of folks evidently thought so last November, but now they're not so sure. No matter; Pelosi and her fellow Democrats know what's best for us.
We really need to read the Democrats' bill (all 2,000 pages of it). We need to do the math. We need to understand how much income and liberty we will have to turn over to the federal government to go down this health care entitlement road. Greg Mankiw gives us an assist here.
If 40 cents of every dollar we earn must be turned over to government, then government owns 40% of our labor. Does that qualify for serfdom? Maybe not. Maybe serfdom starts at 50%. No matter; if the Democrats have their way, we will be there soon enough.
In other words, what most Americans want doesn't matter. The anointed one intends to have it his way, and the majority in Congress is evidently willing to become the minority to make it happen. And why not. The Democrats know that once an entitlement begins, it never goes away. They also know that once in place, entitlement programs always grow.
America is at a serious crossroads. The most profound issue at stake is not about health care; ObamaCare is just the camel's nose in the tent. The profound issue is state control and socialism versus liberty and voluntary exchange.
Are we really prepared to give up our liberty and income to go down this road? Lots of folks evidently thought so last November, but now they're not so sure. No matter; Pelosi and her fellow Democrats know what's best for us.
We really need to read the Democrats' bill (all 2,000 pages of it). We need to do the math. We need to understand how much income and liberty we will have to turn over to the federal government to go down this health care entitlement road. Greg Mankiw gives us an assist here.
If 40 cents of every dollar we earn must be turned over to government, then government owns 40% of our labor. Does that qualify for serfdom? Maybe not. Maybe serfdom starts at 50%. No matter; if the Democrats have their way, we will be there soon enough.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Why Regulation and Regulators?
The Fed, FDIC, and Congress are wrangling ever more fervently about who should regulate what. Here's a question; why should the Fed, the FDIC, or any other alphabet soup agency regulate anything? Regulation is the problem, not the solution.
We all understand that human nature being what it is, we do need laws. We need laws that say simply and plainly, "thou shalt not lie, cheat, steal, kill, defraud (a form of lying), or in any other way compel another human being to do your will." Voluntary exchange must be the order of the day. It's moral; it works. No other form of human interaction is moral, nor does any other system of social interaction work.
Beyond rule of law --- and a system of justice to enforce that law --- why do we need regulators at all? In fact, history shows us over and over and over again that regulators fail and fail miserably. Witness the SEC and Bernie Madoff; witness the Fed and today's banking system with its massive failures.
Now, we are told by Congress and regulators like the Fed and FDIC that it is more regulation and ever more centralized regulation that we need. If that doesn't smell fishy to you, you just don't know a fish when you smell one.
No, we don't need regulators; we just need laws and law enforcement. We especially don't need financial regulators or regulations. We just need people not to lie, cheat, or steal. And when they do lie, cheat or steal, we need to put them so far behind bars that we have to shoot biscuits to them for breakfast in the morning.
We have no fewer than seven major acts of Congress that regulate the financial industry (Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Public Utilities Holding Company Act, Security Investors Protection Act of 1970, National Securities Market Improvement Act of 1996). On top of that, we have state Blue Sky Laws and a whole additional layer of financial regulators.
We have the SEC, FINRA, the Federal Reserve Board and the rest of the Fed, FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, 50 state regulatory authorities, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. We have bank examiners, both federal and state. And now, we are to have yet another regulator --- the Office of Financial Regulation proposed by BHO and his czars.
Will we the people never learn? Regulation and regulators fail. Laws and enforcement of laws to keep people from compelling each other works. Regulation and regulators actually make it easier for a small set of people to compel everyone else. I will argue that Bernie Madoff could not have swindled as he did without the SEC. Care to argue?
Who is ready to argue that regulation and regulators have preserved us, saved us, or helped us in any way? The evidence is all to the contrary.
We all understand that human nature being what it is, we do need laws. We need laws that say simply and plainly, "thou shalt not lie, cheat, steal, kill, defraud (a form of lying), or in any other way compel another human being to do your will." Voluntary exchange must be the order of the day. It's moral; it works. No other form of human interaction is moral, nor does any other system of social interaction work.
Beyond rule of law --- and a system of justice to enforce that law --- why do we need regulators at all? In fact, history shows us over and over and over again that regulators fail and fail miserably. Witness the SEC and Bernie Madoff; witness the Fed and today's banking system with its massive failures.
Now, we are told by Congress and regulators like the Fed and FDIC that it is more regulation and ever more centralized regulation that we need. If that doesn't smell fishy to you, you just don't know a fish when you smell one.
No, we don't need regulators; we just need laws and law enforcement. We especially don't need financial regulators or regulations. We just need people not to lie, cheat, or steal. And when they do lie, cheat or steal, we need to put them so far behind bars that we have to shoot biscuits to them for breakfast in the morning.
We have no fewer than seven major acts of Congress that regulate the financial industry (Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Public Utilities Holding Company Act, Security Investors Protection Act of 1970, National Securities Market Improvement Act of 1996). On top of that, we have state Blue Sky Laws and a whole additional layer of financial regulators.
We have the SEC, FINRA, the Federal Reserve Board and the rest of the Fed, FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, 50 state regulatory authorities, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. We have bank examiners, both federal and state. And now, we are to have yet another regulator --- the Office of Financial Regulation proposed by BHO and his czars.
Will we the people never learn? Regulation and regulators fail. Laws and enforcement of laws to keep people from compelling each other works. Regulation and regulators actually make it easier for a small set of people to compel everyone else. I will argue that Bernie Madoff could not have swindled as he did without the SEC. Care to argue?
Who is ready to argue that regulation and regulators have preserved us, saved us, or helped us in any way? The evidence is all to the contrary.
The Next Crisis Is Right Around the Corner
Here, Matthew J. Novak writes about a disturbing future crisis in the commercial real estate market and its financing, which BHO and his henchmen will doubtless use to advance their vision of a socialist society. You know --- as Rahm Emanuel said, never let a good crisis go to waste.
We are beginning to hear main stream media report that the recession is over. I heard another such report just this morning. Evidently, the pundits and wags who think the recession is over have visions of the future that belie the financial condition of the commercial real estate market.
I personally recommend that folks keep whatever they have left of their wealth in the form of real stuff. I have very little confidence that those in power at the Fed and in Washington DC know the way out of these particular woods.
The purchasing power of your dollars will definitely be falling like that crippled satellite a few months back that the US military shot down. That means the value of fixed income streams --- as in bonds --- will also be falling down the road. What about stocks?
The more socialist our political economy becomes, the less valuable will be those certificates of ownership in companies --- that is to say, stocks. Would you like to own some GM or AIG stock? Make no mistake; this country has set its foot on the path of becoming ever more socialist. We the people elected BHO, didn't we?
Folks who are looking to Washington DC to solve problems that Washington DC created in the first place must be hoping for a mystical experience. History shows us amply the experience they will end up getting.
We are beginning to hear main stream media report that the recession is over. I heard another such report just this morning. Evidently, the pundits and wags who think the recession is over have visions of the future that belie the financial condition of the commercial real estate market.
I personally recommend that folks keep whatever they have left of their wealth in the form of real stuff. I have very little confidence that those in power at the Fed and in Washington DC know the way out of these particular woods.
The purchasing power of your dollars will definitely be falling like that crippled satellite a few months back that the US military shot down. That means the value of fixed income streams --- as in bonds --- will also be falling down the road. What about stocks?
The more socialist our political economy becomes, the less valuable will be those certificates of ownership in companies --- that is to say, stocks. Would you like to own some GM or AIG stock? Make no mistake; this country has set its foot on the path of becoming ever more socialist. We the people elected BHO, didn't we?
Folks who are looking to Washington DC to solve problems that Washington DC created in the first place must be hoping for a mystical experience. History shows us amply the experience they will end up getting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)