Sunday, February 15, 2009
My prediction: the now birthing Obamination will come to a head with the global warming hoax
The financial crisis was an actual emergency. Stimulus spending is not. Few economists think that government spending will do more good than harm, never mind is urgent, and NO economist thinks that it is helpful, never mind urgent, to stuff down a crap sandwich of pork barrel spending timed for three years down the road (in time for the next election).Chris Smith replies:
Obama is Hugo Chavez, and today's Democrats are Hugo Chavez enablers. The "death to America" state of Iran is now guaranteed to get nukes. Hope all you want, but the Change that Obama and Pelosi have in mind is the destruction of our "energy addicted" capitalism, liberty, and power.
My prediction: it is all going to come to a head over the global warming fraud, with Obama et. al. fighting desperately to unplug America in spite of growing evidence that our currently quiescent sun is cooling the earth, proving that late 20th century warming was caused by the "grand maximum" levels of solar activity from 1940-2000, not by CO2.
@Alec. Even if you want to buy off that the "financial crisis" was an "emergency", you still need to judge the tree by the fruit. When the banks accidentally can't say what they did with the cash, you know you got rooked.My response:
Yeah, I don't mean to say that financial rescue has been handled properly. They won't even tell us what they have done! Think what that means. If they were shoring up insitutions in a sustainable way, they would want the world to know about it, to boost confidence in these institutions. The fact that they are being secretive suggests that they are shoring up asset prices in an artificial way which, if it were known, would prompt speculators to short these assets, forcing them to collapse.That's the max comment length Facebook allows. I guess the idea is to keep the Wall conversational. But what if you have no interlocutor? Then don't bother. Don't these "Wall" threads just get buried anyway? The comments don't even have permalinks.
Economists regard this kind of activity as a fool's game, a sure loser in the long run that risks catastrophic losses at any point. My concern all along has been that in an effort to maintain the status quo we have been guaranteeing risky assets, sticking taxpayers with the liability, instead of sending bankrupt banks into reorganization, where equity holders will lose everything (as it should be). In any case, there was a need to take effective action, whether or not Bernanke and Paulson did it.