Wow! Is Alex ever wrong: " | Keynesian ideas come home to roost | Alex Tokarev"

Read the below while keeping in mind that the "20 percent" was actually 10! Under FDR, the unemployment rate fell from about 25% to 10% before the US entered the war. It continued falling during the war, of course. It would have been lower pre-war had FDR not fallen for the deficit hawks' nonsense in what is called the 1939 Mistake. Following the hawks recommendations caused a second recessionary dip. As soon as FDR reversed course back to his New Deal Keynesianism, the economy started recovering again.

Also keep in mind that "state-sponsored housing bubble" is hardly accurate if one is speaking about other than crony capitalists in government. The biggest offenders causing the crash are those who set it up via deregulations. Before all of the deregulating, this last crash would not have happened. Anti-crony-capitalists on the left warned that undoing the Glass-Steagall Act would bring on exactly what happened.

Lastly, don't blame Keynesianism for the fact that there were no strings attached to the bankster bailouts. Don't blame Keynesianism for the fact that banksters were given loans by the Fed that turned around and paid those banksters an interest-earnings spread on those funds parked at the Fed. If there had been strings, there would have been loans and few if any foreclosures.

I'm not a Keynesian. Keynesianism is much to conservative for me.

There are great radical ideas available for fixing all of the current problems, but way too many people are just to stuck, cowardly, and unimaginative.

One of my readers called President Obama's "blueprint" for America a "redprint." Another labeled it a "black eye." Obama's only consolation is that FDR's New Deal did even worse than the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, never bringing unemployment below 20 percent. It was Henry Morgenthau Jr., President Roosevelt's Treasury secretary and chief architect of the 1930s jobs bills, who admitted, "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work ... after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Considering the pitiful performance of the United State's economy under the inept leadership of the White House and a gridlocked Congress plus the "quantitative easings" of the Fed, one wonders why any sane investor would still want to put his eggs in our basket. The truth behind the current low interest rates on our federal government's IOUs is not flattering: We are simply the least ugly girl at the ball. Having fooled Europe into buying the toxic assets from our state-sponsored housing bubble, we added insult to injury by setting a bad example of implementing Keynesian fixes for their already heavily indebted and over-regulated economies.

via | Keynesian ideas come home to roost | Alex Tokarev.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform. Bookmark the permalink.