By Electing Obama America Chose To Perish
Personal Note: I made this statement as a trigger to a Facebook group’s message board. The group is a collective of all Ayn Rand fans from all over the world. As talks of bailouts and economic stimulus emerged in droves days before the inauguration of the first black President of the United States, I thought it was just timely to somehow stimulate the minds of the Americans on what they think about their commander-in-chief.
I am now posting my original statement, as well as the reply of and my counter-reply to some group members. I copied them verbatim.
I’m not from the US, but I was certain months before the election that Obama would be the next America’s commander-in-chief. Press releases from the office of the President-Elect reveal that there would be more bailouts. This is most expected. The character of Obama is the result of his premises. Obama is a collectivist. His administration’s main solution is to pour more oil into the fire so to aggravate the problem. Their solution is to loot or mooch more money from the taxpayers.
Did you not see that the bailout efforts would soon legalize looting? This is a form of institutionalized corruption perpetrated by the powers-that-be. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the most wicked and corrupt leaders who rose to power promised the common good, and Obama is one of them. This year, America must be prepared for a horrible roller-coaster ride.
This is a reply by one Clayton Fields: I have worked for both Countrywide and Lehmans. I was a risk analysts. I told my bosses that the standard of lendering adopted by the industry made the secondary market instruments unsound and could “poison” the portfolios – which the companies rested on. They said to me – “yes both look at all the money were are making”. After that I was pushed out. It sounds made up – but nope – it really happened.
Looters. Who are the looters? The people who took out first and second on their homes. The financiers? You? The politicans?
I think ALL politicans are second handers. They want power. That is there thing. Fro you or I to believed one group of politicans are any better than another leaves us open to be manipulated. Obama is a politican. So is Ron Paul. If I have to pick a politican – I’ll pick the smarter person. Obama. Most of his work will be trash but moments of reason should happen on occasion.
If you have to pick an evil which one do you REALLY profer. Welfare or bullets. Military operations and flag waving or farmer, student and business loans. In reality you get both – and have no choice they are ALL political tools to sway public opinion.
Politics, taxes and second handers have had nothing to do with my success or failures. It was me. If more Americans read Ayn Rand – there would be less scpaegoating and the power brokers would have less influence…then again you read Ayn Rand and are scapegoating.
Politics to politicans and business to businessmen.
My reply: The looters are those who take away the future of those they have sworn to serve. The motto here is that leftist slogan in the Atlas Shrugged: FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.
A reply by one Steve Holmes: yes, and Obama has no clue about what works. For example, there are two fundamentally opposed views on economics. The Austrian school teaches that when a credit cycle reaches a stage of excess, there is no way to avoid a credit bust, ie, the excess debt which cannot be supported by the economy must eventually be purged, as in a business recession. keynesian/monetarist economics teaches that if we stimulate the economy with deficit spending (ie, increased borrowing), and lower interest rates (to stimulate more borrowing), then we can mitigate the bust. The austrian view teaches that this stimulation will only make the eventual bust worse, as it has simply added more debt which cannot be supported by the economy.
All of Obama advisors are keynesians, so they will never discover what works until they drive us into a very deep bust…and even then will probably not admit that their stimulus made the problem worse, but simply conclude that if only they had even more stimulus it would have been ok….ya, they are practicing reason….
My Reply: That is, Obama is simply being moved the WHIM OF THE MOMENT, not REASON. That’s how altruist politicians react to a particular national problem. To act and be persuaded by the WHIM of the moment is utterly immoral because by doing so one is to effectively rule out reason.
A reply by Clayton Fields: I don’t think it is rational to speculate the Obama will suck before he has started.
He does seem to be a pragmatism. As for rationality – what does the role of the president have to do with our actions at businessmen. He protects our ablity trade internationally. He vetos congress. He pick head of state – at the federal level. What power does the president have that effects – individuals in trade?
As for keynesians versus austrians – its an academic argument. Both were developed in bubbles. It seems to be that when used as formulas (thought experiments) they can be useful tool but when treated as more that an empirical tool – can be limiting.
As a finanical analyst I am in the Keynesian school and agree with the general views. The problem is that most of the economists who worked for the Federal Reserve (and Treasury) are Keynesian. The Federal Reserve is based on interest rate parity. It is not a good thing but it does seem to be the case. But I think that even Keynesians the most hardcore Keynesians at this point switches gear to use Austrian in the face of a recession.
Because we are not ties to a school of thought. They are just equations.
Consider that in the 20’s bank allowed people to take out loans with little to not collateral. Local banks were able to print tender based on the notes they had in saving.
In 2005, banks gave out loans based on misvalued collateral. National banks sold securities based notes tied to overvalued collateral.
In both situations it was risk that was miscaluated and interest undercalucated. That is a Keynesians analysis. The Austrian school takes over at this point to state that a recession is required to allow the economy (markets) to readjust. So it would be rational to allow foreclosure, banks and carmakers to fall apart.
It is rational and it WOULD be just.
IT seems that the power that be do not want us to face a second Depression and the tool they have is montetarism.
Will it happen – no. Would Ron Paul or any person who would have ran for President would of allowed it – no. So we are left with a pragmatism. He will probably protect your collective self interests but the rational mind.
Will America perish – no.
My Reply: Even before I met Ayn rand, although that time my views were still flawed and incomplete, I believed that the American constitution was the most moral constitution in the world. I’m from the Philippines
It will be the worst part of American history if its leaders turn their back on the vision of their founding fathers. The American constitution values and gives so much respect to individual rights- the right to Life, Liberty
The current political mindset shows that the common good is the absolute arbiter of all national problems. The Bush administration pulled its worst stunt by putting the “common good” or “national interest” above the individual.
We have to understand that there are now justifications that can be used by the American government to betray the Constitution. Some of which are the following:
1. National emergency doctrine
2. National security reasons
3. Common good and public welfare
4. National economic crisis (the current problem that will justify bail-outs and institutionalized looting
5. Politics of pragmatism or more specifically the politics of the “whim of the moment against reason”
6. Several economic policies and doctrines perpetrated and revitalized to justify government-initiated looting and monopoly like MONETARISM, KEYNESIAN concept, socialized housing, socialized health care, and other socialized programs.
These are all cleverly designed to weaken or to totally erase the word “I”. Through these concepts, national policies, political actions or programs, the individual will have no chance when the common good is dictated by the so-called public or the majority. Ever wonder why the loudest of all calls come from the loud or lousy majority, while those who are against them are called anti-good, anti-equality, greedy, selfish, anti-social, etc.?
Today, the government can now easily nationalize, sieze or control private properties and corporations on the ground of “common good” or “national emergency” because of the effectively established moral codes and political structures in our society. If no one will oppose this evil code and structure, perhaps it will be too late to resist.