For most of his time as a national political figure, Barack Obama has been careful to cloak his core socialist leanings behind a veil of pro-capitalist rhetoric. This makes strategic sense, as Americans still largely identify as pro-capitalist. However, based on his recent speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, the President appears to have reassessed the political landscape in advance of the 2012 elections. Based on the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the recent defeat of Republicans in special elections, he has perhaps sensed a surge of left-leaning sentiment; and, as a result, he finally dropped the pretense.
According to our President's new view of history, capitalism is a theory that has "never worked." He argues that its appeal can't be justified by results, but its popularity is based on Americans' preference for an economic ideology that "fits well on a bumper sticker." He feels that capitalism speaks to the flaws in the American DNA, those deeply rooted creation myths that elevate the achievements of individuals and cast unwarranted skepticism on the benefits of government. He argues that this pre-disposition has been exploited by the rich to popularize policies that benefit themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.
But Obama's knowledge of history is limited to what is written on his teleprompter. And his selection of the same location that Teddy Roosevelt used to chart an abrupt departure into populist politics is deeply symbolic in the opposite way to that which he intended. It is not by some genetic fluke that Americans distrust government. It is an integral and essential part of our heritage. The United States was founded by people who distrusted government intensely and was subsequently settled, over successive generations, by people fleeing the ravages of government oppression. These Americans relied on capitalism to quickly build the greatest economic power the world had ever seen - from nothing.
But according to Obama's revisionist version of American history, we tried capitalism only briefly during our history. First, during the Robber Barron period of the late 19th Century, the result of which was child labor and unprecedented lower-class poverty. These ravages were supposedly only corrected by the progressive policies of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. We tried capitalism again in the 1920s, according to Obama, and the result was the Great Depression. This time, it allegedly took FDR's New Deal to finally slay that capitalist monster. Then, the account only gets more farcical. Apparently, we tried capitalism again under George W. Bush, and the result was the housing bubble, financial crisis, and ensuing Great Recession. Obama now argues that government is needed once again to save the day.
This view is complete fiction and proves that Obama is not qualified to teach elementary school civics, let alone serve as President of the United States. I wonder what other economic system he believes we followed prior to the 1890s and 1920s (and during the 1950s and 1960s) that that he now seeks to restore? Capitalism did not start with J.P. Morgan in 1890s or John D. Rockefeller in the 1920s as the President suggests. In fact, it was about that time that capitalism came under attack by the progressives. We were born and prospered under capitalism. The Great Depression did not result from unbridled capitalism, but from the monetary policy of the newly created Federal Reserve and the interventionist economic policies of both Hoover and Roosevelt - policies that were decidedly un-capitalist.
The prosperity enjoyed during mid-20th century actually resulted from the incredible progress produced by years of capitalism. Contrary to Obama's belief, the New Deal and Great Society did not create the middle class; it was, in fact, a direct result of the capitalist industrial revolution. The socialist programs of which Obama is so fond are the reasons why the middle class has been shrinking. America's economic descent began in the 1960s, when we abandoned capitalism in favor of a mixed economy. By mixing capitalism with socialism, we undermined economic growth, and reversed much of the progress years of laissez-faire had bestowed on average Americans. The back of the middle class is being broken by the weight of government and the enormous burden taxes and regulation place on the economy.
America's first experiment with socialism, the Plymouth Bay Colony, ended in failure, and our most successful colonies - New York, Virginia, Massachusetts - were begun primarily as commercial enterprises. When the founding fathers gathered to write the Constitution, they represented capitalist states and granted the federal government severely limited powers.
Apparently, Obama thinks our founders' mistrust of government was delusional, and that we were fortunate that far wiser groups of leaders eventually corrected those mistakes. The danger, as Obama sees it, is that some Republicans actually want to reverse course and adopt the failed ideas espoused by great American fools like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin.
The President unknowingly illustrated his own contradictory thinking with the importance he now places on extending the temporary payroll tax cuts. If all that stands between middle-class families and abject poverty is a small tax cut, imagine how much damage the far more massive existing tax burden already inflicts on those very households! If Obama really wants to relieve middle-class taxpayers of this burden, he needs to reduce the cost of government by cutting spending. After all, there is no way to pay for all the government programs Obama wants simply by taxing the rich.
History has proven time-and-again that capitalism works and socialism does not. Taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor does not grow the economy. On the contrary, it reduces the incentives of both parties. It lowers savings, destroys capital, limits economic growth, and lowers living standards. Maybe Obama should take his eyes off the teleprompter long enough to read some American history. In fact, he could start by reading the Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”. Professor Richard Lindzen
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Obama Gets Real
Friday, October 07, 2011
"For America to remain a capitalist nation, America's banks must remain free. Remember this as you listen to anti-bank slanders from the White House"
Socialism: The mob assaults against our banking system by unemployed leftists and their political allies are part of a larger strategy to control the commanding heights of our economy. And we'll all be much poorer for it.
The White House has thrown in with the anticapitalism crowd, and banks had better watch out. You only had to hear President Obama's cynical, politicized expressions of sympathy for the unwashed legions "occupying" Wall Street this week to be worried.
"Not only did the financial sector, with the Republican Party in Congress, fight us every step of the way," Obama said at his news conference Thursday. "But now you've got these same folks arguing we should roll back all those reforms and go back to the way it was."
But no criticism of the demonstrators.
In fact, added Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, "We are going to push back harder," making what sounds like a fairly explicit threat against the banks.
Welcome to class warfare, 2011-style. Obama's ratings have never been lower, and administration policies leading to a dead-in-the-water economy with 9%-plus unemployment are incredibly unpopular.
So he must think his only hope for re-election is to somehow tie the GOP to fat-cat bankers on Wall Street and then convince voters that the banks are to blame for all their ills.
Sound cynical? It is. But this is what Obama and the Democrats are doing. They've even put out a video: "Republicans: On the Side of Wall Street, not Consumers."....(READ THE REST HERE at Investors.com)
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Time To Kill The Welfare State and Embrace Capitalism
Robert Tracinski writes an excellent article about the miserable failure of the welfare state or socialism/communism. Government run economies DO NOT WORK. Let's learn the lesson and embrace what does work - CAPITALISM. Below is Mr. Tracinski's article.
A while back, Peggy Noonan wrote that "unsustainable" is the "word of the decade." She's onto something. From the debates over Social Security and Medicare reform, to the Greek debacle in Europe, to the pensions of state government employees, to the higher-education bubble, we are saddled with institutions that are economically unsustainable. They are doomed to collapse by the ruthless certainty of arithmetic.
What do all of these things have in common? They are manifestations of the modern welfare state--and that is what is unsustainable.
I could rehearse the statistics. Social Security is projected to completely use up its trust fund in 2036 and Medicare in 2024, but both systems are already going into the red because there are no actual assets in those trust funds. As Social Security and Medicare begin to pay out more than they take in from payroll taxes, they are swallowing up the entire federal budget and guaranteeing a steady increase in our already dangerous debt. For some state governments, like California, insolvency is looming. For others, it has already arrived; Illinois hasn't paid its bills for years. And where we're all headed is demonstrated by Greece, where government debt now equals more than 175% of the country's annual economic output, well above the threshold (roughly 100%) where debt starts to become impossible to service.
Everyone has already had plenty of time to absorb these statistics. What most people haven't absorbed yet is the basic economic unsustainability of the welfare state.
The welfare state is taken for granted as the "normal" state of affairs, as if it has always existed. At least, it is assumed that the welfare state has been around for so many decades that the current crisis is just a temporary aberration, a rough patch that we can get through with only minor reforms. But the actual economic history does not bear this out. The welfare state "as we know it"--that is, at its current size--is a product of recent decades. In all of its branches, it has vastly increased just in the past 30 to 40 years. So the current crisis is not some temporary aberration. It is cause and effect. It is a direct consequence of the modern welfare state
Let's take a look at the major branches of the welfare state, particularly the ones that are in crisis. They are: education, government employment, health care, and retirement.
The first two are interconnected. State governments are in crisis, not because of firefighters and policeman, but mostly because of salaries and pensions for public school teachers. Government spending on all levels for public education has more than doubled since 1970, after adjusting for inflation, with no improvement in the system's results.
Something similar has been happening in higher education, mostly through the indirect mechanism of student loans...READ "The Half-Life of the Welfare State" by Robert Tracinski at RealClearMarkets.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
"The Destruction of Capitalism in the Very Country that Created it."
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Europe, IMF and the European Central bank Admit Quietly that Government Healthcare is Unsustainable. Surprise!!!!
Policy Failure: Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.
The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."
This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."
Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.
The public health system in the Hellenic Republic is operated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, where centralized decisions and rules are made.
It provides free or low-cost treatment through what is essentially a single-payer system established in 1983 when the Socialist Party was in power. Family members and retirees are also covered. Like the systems in Britain and Canada, it has agonizingly long waiting lists...READ the rest here at IBD.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Looting Has Been Signed Into Law With the Health Care Bill - Now Comes Gang Rule

Monday, December 28, 2009
Doctors Should Go On Strike!
Rand demonstrates that in this kind of atmosphere the only way to “flourish” is by businessmen becoming corrupt in order to seek profits. To do this, of course, they must manipulate crooked politicians on the take. Sound familiar to anything happening today?
The Health Care bill which seems likely to pass after reconciliation between the Senate and House versions will almost certainly take us, by a giant leap, to socialism by turning our doctors into slaves of the state. Think what this will do to the quality of young men and women who decide to become doctors. Who do you think will sign up to train for 10-15 years of grueling study and hardship in order to practice a profession where the majority under the best of circumstances makes an OK living? For the most part it will not be the best and the brightest but the ones who can “work the system” as Rand showed in her novel. In a sense there will be a strike by the doctors - the best, brightest and honest ones will NOT become doctors.
Rand’s novel depicts a scenario where the men of the mind go on strike. Brilliant bankers, engineers, financiers, doctors and nurses, all decide to withdraw their minds from the market place. Hundreds go to a secret town in the mountains to start a new society based on individual rights and economic freedom. They do this as a declaration of their right to think, live and exercise their profession as they see fit.
Maybe the beginning of the 2nd decade of the 2nd millennium is the time for a showdown between statism and freedom, Socialism and Capitalism, and between the chained mind and the free mind. It’s time for Americans to learn what Capitalism is and what huge benefits and riches it has provided those few nations that follow even partially its principles, and we must learn that governments exist to PROTECT rights….not to violate them as ours has for the past century in ever increasing amounts.
“Capitalism, the system of individual rights, has brought increased freedom to men all over the world. In Europe, capitalism ended feudalism…In America... the principle of individual rights impelled the British colonists to throw off the rule of the monarchy and establish history’s freest nation – and the logic of the country’s founding principles led, in less than a century, to the abolition of slavery…”
“Capitalism is the system of freedom…”
“Capitalism is the system of wealth…” (The Capitalist Manifest by Andrew Bernstein; University Press of America)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
How We Got To The BlackHole We're In Today - Expanding Government
The bailouts for the banks and automakers make no sense from a purely economic standpoint. Instead, one must understand their political purpose: they are a laboratory. The bailouts created a special zone of the economy in which the government has an excuse - as the provider of bailout funds-to exercise dictatorial control over private businesses. This is a laboratory for the kind of economic dictatorship the left would like to exert in every area of the economy.
In the case of the auto bailouts, we can see quite clearly the uses to which capital will be diverted under this regime. It will be used for a favorite cause of the Old Left - propping up the labor unions-and for the central cause of the New Left: environmentalism...
...The same is true of the $787 billion economic "stimulus" bill passed in Congress in February. The spending in that bill is also an attempt, not to stimulate actual economic production, but to divert more money into the agendas of the Old and New Left-a combination of welfare statism and environmentalism.
...It is now a central premise of contemporary economic theory to refuse to consider the long-term consequences of the government's actions.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Capitalism Is A Love Story - It Keeps on Giving
...Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts and ensure rule of law.
...If one ranked countries according to whether they were closer to the capitalistic end of the spectrum or the socialistic or communistic end, then ranked countries according to per capita GDP and finally rank countries according to Freedom House's "Map of Freedom in the World," he would find a pattern that is by no means a coincidence. The people in those countries closer to the capitalist end of the economic spectrum have far greater income and enjoy greater human rights protections than those toward the socialist and communist end.
...Most of our country's serious problems can be laid at the feet of Congress and the White House and not at capitalism. Take the financial crisis. One-third of the $15 trillion of mortgages in existence in 2008 are owned, or securitized by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and the Veterans Administration. Banks didn't mind making risky loans and Wall Street buyers didn't mind buying these repackaged loans because they assumed that they would be guaranteed by the federal government: read bailout by taxpayers. Under a capitalist system, financial institutions would not have been intimidated or encouraged into making risky loans and neither would they have been bailed out if they did so. READ at CAPMAG.com
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Frederic Bastiat - A Great Defender of Capitalism and Freedom from Do-Gooders
"Let Us Try Liberty" by Frederic Bastiat
Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty...
"The Desire to Rule Over Others"
This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world - legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.
"Proper Legislative Functions"
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator...
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.
Friday, May 08, 2009
America Needs An "Ethical Revolution"
So unlike the claims of some, the current crisis is not so much a battle between Wall Street and Main Street. The problem we face today rests on every street; it rests in our nation's unchallenged enshrinement of need as a virtue and its willingness to use government power to assuage that need. Instead of leaving people free to work toward improving their lives though their own efforts, we have created a system of perverse incentives; a system that has now collapsed as a system so-designed must.
What then is the answer to this panic? I hold that we simply ought to let the businesses that failed fail, expedite the liquidation of their assets at their current market value under streamlined bankruptcy laws, and once and for all remove our government from the business of creating perverse economic incentives.
Notice however that such a plan is not a serious proposal being debated within the halls of Congress. Instead we are told that we require more regulation of banking through "Financial Stability Oversight Boards," smaller CEO salaries, stricter business accounting rules, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of banking, subsidies to borrowers, and perhaps most rich, we are told that we should expect our government to make money from it all as it essentially nationalizes the commercial banking sector. I'm sure the folks at Amtrak think that they are going to make money one day too, but institutions that respond to political wishes rather than the reality of the marketplace do not make money; they lose it and in our age they lose it to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars.
So for the market to be restored, we must first demand an ethical revolution, one that says that people have a right to their life, liberty and the freedom to pursue their own happiness, but not a right to claim the unearned or a right to have our government provide it for them. Our nation needs to learn a new mantra: Give us liberty, and death to government controls. (Read here at Center for the Advancement of Capitalism).
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Weighing Michael Phelps Down With Weights

Saturday, March 07, 2009
Atlas Shrugged Tells Obama: Hands Off The Economy!
...Tellingly, the spikes in the novel’s sales coincide with the news (see chart). The first jump, in September 2007, followed dramatic interest-rate cuts by central banks, and the Bank of England’s bail-out of Northern Rock, a troubled mortgage lender. The October 2007 rise happened two days after the Bush Administration announced an initiative to coax banks to assist subprime borrowers. A year later, sales of the book rose after America’s Treasury said that it would use a big chunk of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Programme to buy stakes in nine large banks. Debate over Mr Obama’s stimulus plan in January gave the book another lift. And sales leapt once again when the stimulus plan passed and Mr Obama announced a new mortgage-modification plan.
Whenever governments intervene in the market, in short, readers rush to buy Rand’s book. Why? The reason is explained by the name of a recently formed group on Facebook, the world’s biggest social-networking site: “Read the news today? It’s like ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is happening in real life”. The group, and an expanding chorus of fretful bloggers, reckon that life is imitating art.
Some were reminded of Rand’s gifted physicist, Robert Stadler, cravenly disavowing his faith in reason for political favour, when Alan Greenspan, an acolyte of Rand’s, testified before a congressional committee last October that he had found a “flaw in the model” of securitisation. And with pirates hijacking cargo ships, politicians castigating corporate chieftains, riots in Europe and slowing international trade—all of which are depicted in the book—this melancholy meme has plenty of fodder. (READ HERE)
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Americans Can Watch as the Consequences of Big Government Unfold

I'm glad Obama is the leader of the greatest country ever devised by man because then maybe in the future we will be careful voters keeping in mind the ominous consequences. I thank the Republicans who did not vote for this "stimulus" binge. It is how they should always behave when confronted with the choice of government mass intervention in the economy and small government that leaves people alone to live their lives as they see fit. I'm not saying that McCain would have been better....he was no conservative, so yes I'm glad Obama won - a professed big spender who was raised at the knee of a socialist and worked in the socialist ghettos of Chicago. That's what we got: a socialist.
To regain a Capitalist country there are going to have to be some rude awakenings by many people in this beloved land of ours. There is a big difference between freedom and a government controlled economy; between the freedom to act according to your own judgement and the government telling you what to do and what's best for you; between Capitalism and Socialism.
We all have to learn government does not produce anything, and in fact does not do anything well; that most politicians, especially the ones who've been in Washington for a gazillion years are nothing but self-aggrandizing hacks on the take. Remember, the only really important job of government is the defense of our soil and Americans! We are all adults we don't need the nanny state to watch over us.
The problem is we need a better class of politicians. Perhaps, when things are so bad and Obama's fumbling attempts at leading are discovered for what they are - a drastic plunge to the left, a better type of person will step up. George Washington where are you when we need you?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inching Our Way to a Government Controlled Economy
"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism," she wrote in The Voice of Reason, "consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."...
Culprit number one is the Federal Reserve, charged with what Mason calls "running the real economy" - the illegitimate job of centrally determining how much money exists and how high interest rates are. It was the Fed that flooded the market with cheap money that went begging for a bubble to invest in.
Then there are the policies of government deposit insurance and "too big to fail," which encourage large banks to take short-term risks that taxpayers will be forced to bail them out of. And that's not even to mention the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.
Time after time, the American government gave special handouts to some Americans in the name of "promoting homeownership" or "financial stability," while forcing others to foot the bill.
This was manifestly the opposite of Miss Rand's view that men should deal with one another to mutual benefit via trade.
What was needed in the past and is still needed today is a political system solely dedicated to protecting the individual rights to life, liberty, and property against force and fraud...
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Socialism: Done Many Times and Always Failed

"Industrial policy" was always just an evasive euphemism used to describe the latest variation on the old theory of central planning. But central planning and nationalization of industries was a dead end when the old Soviet Russians tried it—and it is still a dead end now that Russia is trying it again.
We tried it all, and every time it led to poverty and oppression. Those results have been proven with scientific thoroughness. There is no excuse for trying it all again.