Thursday, December 8, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
What can and cannot a politician do? Well this is what I believe to be a flawed question. Why you would feel the need to ask a politician what to do or what can he do about economics is disastrous. I feel that politics should have a very small involvement with economics at all, that their purpose is only to ensure the safety of its citizens and to enforce contractual agreements. This being said I think the fact that the government is as involved in economics as to classify it more as an economic organization rather than a political one because at this point the two halves are in separable. I often talk about the over bearing squid of government that needs our support but also has the ability to eat those underneath, and in pertinence to this the squid uses its long and strong economic tentacles to try and steer those underneath it and make sure it has an adequate flock of followers to keep itself off the ground. I hate this squid, I don’t think it should have its tentacles in my economics, and I choose not to stand underneath it if given the choice. This choice is not given to me that often and so I see myself routinely being pushed around by a tentacle made of us dollars and hate its influence over our society locally and globally. I wonder if there is even a possibility to get completely out from under the squid, or is you leave one will you walk under another. I may never find my way out of this sea of tentacles.
To make this more palatable, I suggest watching the Daily Show's coverage, which is available on the show's website, the bit is called America's Next TARP Model, it played on Thursday Dec 1.
What can we say about this? I know we have been discussing the role of government; some seem to think our governmental institutions are going to lead directly to an apocalyptic fate where the U.S. greenback will lose all value. While I have made it clear that, I do not agree with the former statement, this opaque maneuvering of government is unconscionable. What accountability is there if the Fed is allowed to make take such unilateral action? What can we say about moral hazard here?
Bastiat makes a good point of what should be obvious but is often times over looked. I just had this image of Krugman on a round table discussion about all the economic good that would come from the destruction of 9/11. I don't exactly fear people who are naive and don't see the unseen parts of economics but when people, such as Krugman, who have to have at some point learned about the broken window fallacy deny or ignore it it makes me afraid.