This morning, I caught a bit of some right-winger or another on the extremely liberal MSNBC network that features 3 hours per morning of former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough. (Damn liberal media.) Anyway, the speaker was suggesting that if government would just get out of the way and stop trying to fix our problems, then our problems would more or less go away. See, government was the problem. (There were no questions, while I was watching at least, on how this theory of government being the problem squares with the lack of regulatory oversight turning into the AIG led financial implosion.) So, anyway, government should do nothing “for our own good.”
Curv3ball at The Poor Man Institute captures some of this in the call for sacrifice from the common man.
Because we’re in a recession, it would be irresponsible – naive even – for Obama to refrain from exacting a pound of flesh from average Americans. How long can he continue to deny reality? After all, in down economic times, we “all†have to make sacrifices. Like, say, slashing social security, medicare and unemployment benefits. Or raising taxes on the middle class, lowering minimum wage and laying off police officers, firefighters and teachers. That’s just off the top of my head. It’s the responsible thing to do.
Fear not, though. Those sacrifices will make the sacrificees better in the long run – reinforce their moral fiber and, ultimately, lead to true happiness! Struggle is good for the soul and the spirit! Everyone should do it! Almost.
All of this came together in my mind to remind me of the great line from Cool Hand Luke:
Captain, Road Prison 36: You gonna get used to wearin’ them chains after a while, Luke. Don’t you never stop listenin’ to them clinking. ‘Cause they gonna remind you of what I been saying. For your own good.
Luke: Wish you’d stop bein’ so good to me, cap’n.
Update Speaking of AIG – how is this for chutzpah? It is suing the United States Government for the return of $306 million in tax payments. (h/t I Like Pie, Spot!)
“Those sacrifices will make the sacrificees better in the long run – reinforce their moral fiber and, ultimately, lead to true happiness!”
Yes – those of use who have moral fiber already will have it reinforced through sacrifice. Those people who don’t have moral fiber – the robber baron bankers who caused this problem – will not gain any, because they are living fat off our cash and will not have to make any sacrifices. Unless I complete this plan I have that involves torches and pitchforks. I’m studying Samuel Adams for ideas on that.
Take those torches and pitchforks to the people who keep rewarding and enabling the crooks. If you want AIG’s to go away, they have to be punished, not rewarded.
Mike: And when we do, people like you bellow that it’s “socialism”.
Mike – Nah, I’m not going to be distracted from the problem at hand by you attempting to divert the pitckfork and torch brigade towards people you have your own beef with. Getting distracted by partisan politics helped create this problem; I’m not going to let that derail the solution.
Blue Fielder- You haven’t been reading my stuff too carefully. I’ve been out there calling a fraud a fraud, and calling for jail for executives for directed fraud. I call the bailouts socialism, because they are eliminating private risk and making it public, while ensuring that their profits are private. That’s the socialism. Corporatism/fascism, actually. But it’s not only socialism. It’s stupid.
Steph- Someone is partisan here. In fact, it’s both of us. You’re a partisan ‘D’, and I’m a partisan ‘L’. Time to dismount that high horse.
I look at government as a sort of parent, and AIG the child. The child can ask for the earth, moon, and stars, but only government could give it to them. Here, it did. And then, the angst is directed at the child? Seems greatly misplaced.
.
There is no choice but to either run our own government, or to be run by it at someone else’s hands. It ain’t going away. We’ll never do away with government any more than we will do away with courts or laws, and for the same reasons. Would the problems they are meant to deal with simply go away if courts & laws went away? We support them because we need them. And they need us; they couldn’t function without our support, active or passive. We can’t avoid supporting the law, the courts or the government, actively or passively. There is no place far enough out in the woods for that any more. If we fail to participate actively in governing ourselves, we are passively supporting laws & courts and a government that doesn’t represent us and therefore cannot work; not for most of us, anyway. We must participate actively, or nothing works, for us. “Conservatives” either don’t get this, or their leaders pretend they don’t get it in order to keep the rest of us from exercising the power which we have vested in government. That leaves all that power to those who do choose to exercise it, our self-styled corporate masters. In advocating the impossible, the withering away of the State, “conservatives” are simply giving it up without a fight. No wonder the corporations support them. But why do “conservatives” support the corporations?
(Continues on my blog; too long for here. Thanks for the idea.)
.
Mike, that’s one of the best posts you’ve had. I really can’t add anything to it.
You could do your own research. Might I recommend (though I haven’t myself read it yet) Meltdown by Tom Woods?
Of course, Woods will be full of rhetoric to accompany the theory I’m sure, so you could instead read Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard on business cycle theory if you prefer the long, but more in-depth route.
Of course, as a shortcut, I’d be happy to dig up some good lectures on their theory for you.
NOTE: Not sure who the guest was but I’m definitely not implying that Scarborough knows anything about business cycle theory.
I watch Joe Scarborough program regulary,but it’s best to record it to avoid all the annoying and frequent commercials.
Today,they were discussing the future of Wall street and a guest presented a model for 2 Wall Streets: one ultilitarian and highly regulated ,and one called ‘Casino Wall Street’, that would be wide open with no rules and high reward-high risk that would never have to be bailed out .
Now there is just one Wall Street which has been all no-rules with high risk that has to be bailed out for the sake of preserving the system for everyone.
It seems a fascinating possibility,and hopefully we will get more information presented in a clear format about this new economic model.
The weak link on the ‘Morning Joe’ Program is Joe scarborough himself,imo.There are interesting,informed ,expert guests,but Joe goes on and on pontificating, sounding ‘fair and balanced,’ trying to unsuccessfully hide what he really believes.