EJR VI: Opinion Journal, Etc.

Funny about Myopic Zeal. We aren’t quibbling with Eason’s right to say what he wants to say.

We are amazed at the content of what he said.

There are repercussions to what you say. If what Eason is saying is true then where is the evidence and lets have the military personnel prosecuted for “targeting” journalists.

If it was slander by Eason then let’s MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS that EASON is NOT CREDIBLE EVER AGAIN.

I read the Hugh Hewitt and Larry Kudlow transcript that La Shawn linked.

I listen to Hugh everyday and agree with him 90% of the time.

One thing I disagree with him on though is that he called this Easongate thing larger than Rathergate.

Why do I diagree? Because Eason was not a household name. Almost everybody knew Dan Rather.

Both cases are basically stating something without evidence to try to smear people. One was trying to smear Bush and one was trying to smear our military personnel. In neither case can the smearer (Rather or Eason) show evidence to backup their CLAIM.

Another reason why Rathergate was and is bigger is because EVIDENCE WAS MANUFACTURERED. Created. Fabricated. We don’t know who did it but it was created and was so easily shown to be and Rather stuck to the story as true.

Sorry Hugh. I disagree with you.

I was very dissapointed with Sean Hannity. He did a poor job when they were discussing it. Eason has now said he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore.

The big picture of Rathergate was the willingness, of “trusted” news folk, to LIE in order to make Bush look bad.
The big picture of Easongate is the willingness, of CNN, to LIE in order to make Bush’s Op. Iraqi Freedom invasion look bad.

Both are terrible. Like the Killing Fields genocide after the US left Vietnam, the alternative to US imposed democracy in Iraq is death squad gov’t.

“Neutrality”, like Jay Rosen wants, means to be neutral between death squad gov’t and democracy.

(La Shawn, Joe Gandleman has a better roundup. You’re doing well; I advise you to ally more strongly with Easongate, and attempt to lead the Boycott CNN.

Baklava,
I’ll disagree with you, and say that this is at least as big as Rathergate. Joe Sixpack may not know who Eason Jordan is, but we all know who/what CNN is. Even if you don’t have cable or sattelite, if you have a TV or radio, you know that CNN is an influential news outlet. You might even beleive the hype that they are the premier broadcast news outlet.
Not everyone will know his name, but they will grasp the concept of being the grand poobah of the news group, in a company devoted to reporting the news.
Rathergate (oh, how I hate gate) showed many people that Dan Rather and his producer were biased hacks. The fact that it got on air, and was then defended and covered, only eroded public faith in a media giant. The election coverage of 2000 and 2004 added more fuel to the fire. Now toss in that CNNs news head covered for Saddam AND is making false claims of soldiers assasinating reporters…
The foundations are crumbling.

Gannon was a [White House credentialed] no-name [well, actually his name was JD Guckert] from a [fake] media service.

I’d say bigger than gannon is brit hume’s lies about FDR.

And some are even out there lying about Reid’s support of SS privatization. But maybe they’re just innocently following GOP talking points, and they just don’t know that those are lies.

The ones about FDR supporting a replacement of Social Security with a privatized scheme.

Hume, Bennet:

Sorry, Actus. The link is messing up the format. – Admin

Actus, who sold you that lie? Kos? Oh I know, no need to fact check him.

Why don’t you try this link http://www.google.com/unclesam?hl=en&lr=&q=FDR+annuities+Social+security&btnG=Google+Search

‘Seems to me that FDR envisioned our current system as a jumpstart method, before transitioning to a PIA type system.’

You’re misunderstanding it.

This is the key:
‘It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.’

So whats supposed to go away isn’t the compulsory contribution, but the pensions funded by the general fund in a non pay-as-you-go fashion. In the 1,2,3 set up above, 1 is supposed to give way to 2 and 3. 2 is Social Security, 3 is investments like 401k’s.

Whey they say ’self-supporting’, they’re talking about pay as you go.

I suppose to more flush out this plan, we would have private accounts which supplant social security, not replace it. Thats not the bush plan, but some dems have been talking about that.

Except Mike, the money you put in the system now was never intended to be there when you retire.

“You’re misunderstanding it”

Granted Actus, I could have been more specific instead of the generalization. But you’re right, half & half is apparently what FDR was thinking.
And I totally agree that SS, as a social construct, can’t function as a 100% PIA, otherwise, how would people that fall thru the cracks or get short changed get taken care of?

In all this talk about reform, it’s just that; people talking about the various mechanisms to make it self supporting. I’m all for stirring the pot with different ideas & suggestions. That’s the way it should be, Instead we have hyperventilating moonbats like Pelosi, Reid and friends screeching that Bush is going to rape the system. Get real people.

Just as any prudent investor will mix up his portfolio, SS needs to be a mix of funding and annuity (I seem to remember someone talking about it being illegal or evil for the govt to invest in interest bearing accounts or some nonsuch). Essentially, all we have going for SS are T-bonds to fund all of SS obligation. It goes without saying that anytime the congress wants to dip into it, or slow the payout, they simply do so by fiat, nevermind market forces.

As for those who bleat, ‘what about if we have another major stock crash?’ Give me a break. If the market tanks, how is the govt going to fare any better.

You had me going there for a while, thinking you were beginning to see the light.

Pray tell what on earth do you mean “when he talks about…”? All he is doing is tossing out a number of ways or bullets to be explored, formulated and negotiated. It is not like he has present a complete package and asking for immediate passage. Bush is basically saying, ‘I’ve heard all the naysayers, now lead, follow or get the heck out of the way, but let’s start designing a reform package”.

“Because its the govt, and not the market” Huuh?? That’s like saying money grows on trees. Why, pray tell, is the German govt forced to reform its generous welfare package towards a free market economy, albeit slowly? Just becasue its the govt doesn’t mean it is immune from market forces, hence the 11% unemployment rate and ever declining revenues.

Now you don’t get it: no one is mixing their investments yet when it comes to SS, its all collected and “owned” by the govt to redistribute if, when as as much as they please.

“SS provides a floor…” Huuuh? You can’t maintain the floor yet open up half the funding base to investment from the same pot of money (15%). Either the floor goes down or the mandatory funding goes up, and I am more than sure that raising the compulsory rate is not what the people want.

Look, when SS started, there were 42 contributers to every recipient, now we’re less than 3:1. If that’s not lowering the floor, then SS is not a Ponzi scheme.

Here’s an excerpt from the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (2001) for you:
From the first, Social Security was a work in progress. It remains so now. In 1939, just four years after enactment, the Administration and Congress added major provisions. FDR called for more. As he signed the 1939 Amendments he stated: “we must expect a great program of social legislation, as such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding.” He urged an “active study” of future possibilities.

One such possibility – personal retirement accounts that would endow workers with a measure of wealth – has emerged as the central issue in the ongoing national debate over social insurance.

There are a number of reasons for this. The first is the most obvious, if perhaps the least commented upon: Social Security retirement benefits are no longer the bargain they once were. There is nothing sinister about this. Early retirees benefited from the fixed formula of retirement benefits. For years the Social Security Administration would distribute photographs of Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, who having paid $24.75 in Social Security taxes lived to age 100 and collected $22,889 in benefits.

In Miss Fuller’s time there were almost 42 covered workers for each Social Security beneficiary. We are now down to 3.4 workers per beneficiary. As a result, Social Security as a retirement measure has become a poor investment. It is, even so, an essential insurance program. Widows and dependent children are very reliant on dependent benefits. For widows, widowers, singles and children, the monthly check can be a steady, stabilizing factor in life. That said, however, Social Security’s actuaries estimate that, for a single male worker born in 2000 with average earnings, the real annual return on his currently-scheduled contributions to Social Security will be only 0.86 percent. This is not what sends savers to savings banks. For workers who earn the maximum amount taxed (currently $80,400, indexed to wages) the real annual return is minus 0.72 percent.

Somehow, I knew when I asked for data, it would have come from Mediamatters.
Anyway, Hume has interpreted what FDR said differently than you, and Mediamatters [DNC shill David Brock]. At worst, it is purposeful, in that he doesn’t believe (Hume) it either, but said it anyway. If that is the case, then it puts him par with Tim Russert and co selectively quoting Rummy over the weekend, to put his response to under-armored humvees in a bad light.
There’s a large gap between both of these instances and CNN’s executives’ behaivor and Rather/Mapes.

Actus, re-read what I said.
Its so obviously wrong that it has to be a lie. -Actus
You are making a leap to assume that because he interps it differently, that is must be a purposeful lie. Disagrement does not make a liar.
In that light, how was SS a crisis when Clinton was president, but not now, according to the ranking dems?
That said, if he knows it is wrong (and that he does is your opinion), then it is a lie. Do you have quotes or cites from Hume in the past contradicting what he says today? Even round about ones, that only hint at a difference in opinion on SS and FDRs take on private funding. Anything. Or are you just expressing your opinion, that anyone that disagrees with your (and David Brock’s) view must be a liar?
As for Rather and Mapes, they ignored all of the standards and checks that their profession is supposed to posses, because they wanted to believe in the story. At best. If I were to ascribe more devious motives and absent morals to them, as you like to do with Hume, I could say that they knew the story was false, but hoped the damage would be done before anyone noticed, if ever.
Now, for the record, I haven’t had the time to read and analyse what FDR said. But I know I’ve seen more interpretations of it than Humes and Mediamatters’ since the President gave the SoTU.

‘You are making a leap to assume that because he interps it differently, that is must be a purposeful lie. Disagrement does not make a liar.’

I’m making the assumption that his interpretation is so unreasaonable that it can’t but be deliberate. But, in the interests of ending this debate and threadjack, I’ll settle for him being a careless idiot.

‘In that light, how was SS a crisis when Clinton was president, but not now, according to the ranking dems?’

There are several reasons, one is that the fiscal situation in SS has improved since that time — the dates for the trust fund drawdown and eventual zeroing have been pushed back since then. Another is that then they had a general fund that was in the black and thus could move on to the less pressing issues of SS. Relatedly is that there are bigger problems now, such as that general fund, as well as medicare and the war.

I have heard the comment that if it weren’t for lewinsky/impeachment, we’d have reformed SS by now. Which is kinda funny, but I don’t know if its true.

‘Amazing how actus turns a disagreement on interpretation of what is at best an ambiguous handful of sentences by FDR in lying.’

I don’t think FDR was being ambiguous — perhaps he was too complicated for a guy like Hume. And I don’t know how anyone could think that FDR would be pro-private sector.

‘Actus-So, anyone that disagrees with you on this is an idiot, or a liar. Just so we’re clear’

I just don’t see what there is to disagree about. The meaning is pretty clear. So is FDR’s ideology. Anyone who thinks that FDR was favorable to the private sector is, well, an idiot.

‘Or, could it be, that the natures of, and relationships between, government and private sector has changed a bit since FDR was in the Oval Office?’

I’m sure they have. But what that has to do with what FDR meant by his words in 1935, I don’t know. I think you’re proving my point here: FDR’s words are for a different time, and unambiguous as to their intent then and now.

‘Harry Truman would be hard pressed finding acceptance among the Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer wing of the dem party today.’

Absolutely. Truman was considered heroic for taking on war profiteers while in Congress. If Kennedy or Boxer were to complain about Halliburton’s contracting, what would be the verdict? Whiny liberals!

actus, you are only demonstrating your own lack of credibility in this ( together with Media Matters and the rest who have decided to blow this molehill into a hollow mountain ).

More significantly, in the context of the discussion for which this quote from FDR was mentioned, Hume was correct in using it to rebut the Democrat claims that Bush’s plans were so foreign to the original purposes of social security and to rebut silly claims that FDR would have opposed this reform. A silly claim you seem to want to repeat. And your attempt to refer to FDR’s “ideology” is pretty hilarious. If you had any sense of history, you would know that FDR shifted positions with the wind.

Hume’s interpretation is simply not “so wrong” that it has to be a lie. You and MM are really pieces of work. Adding to Hume’s side is that he is being called a liar by Media Matters. That’s like being called a child molestor by Michael Jackson.

But lets sum up, actus. You felt so threatened that Eason Jordan might have to pay the consequences for his slander of the US military that you thought you had to take this comment thread into this ridiculous digression over a literally meaningless comment that was at best a mistake by Hume that didn’t undermine Hume’s actual purpose in making it. Thank you for confirming so much.

I like how as evidence, rather than to say, quote the text… -Actus
Now I’ve seen it all. Actus, you know the saying about proving a negative, right? You’ve yet to show any proof tht Hume is lying! The burden of proof rests with the proecutions, or in your case, the persecution.
Now, for your interp of FDR and the transistion scheme… does it matter that the assumptions that were common wisdom at the time, turned out to be less than right? Such as the increased lifespan of our citizens, or the fact that the boomer generation had fewer children per capita than their forbears?
Can you at least admit, that SS, as FDR and co wrote and implemented it, can not work going forward? That it is broken. A ponzi scheme, and the critical mass has been reached…

Sure actus, it’s fine, we just have to keep raising taxes every so often. No big deal., just ask the EU how their grand SS is faring.

Now I’ll quibble with what you’ve been maintaining for a while, insurance=good, investment=risky. From the Dem POV, I suppose you’re right, insurance in the event one should have the misfortune of surviving their working phase. I on the other hand, prefer to invest for the liklihood or intent to retire. If I should not make it, at least I own it and can bequeath it to whomever.

But back to your insurance is good. A generation ago, people were told that for the small payment of 4% of their income, they could purchase insurance, whose payout would be greater than they ever paid into. Now, we’re being told that for just a small payment of 15%, we can get “insurance” that may or may not even match our total payment. In fact, those at the upper end of the scale will indeed get a negative return. I suppose in your scheme of things, that serves them right for being so rich. Since everything is so hunky-dory, I guess that means my kids will be compelled to set aside 25%, not to enjoy life in their golden age, but to support the Soylent Green infrastructure.

For an edumacated leagle beagle, I must say that anyone who thinks a Ponzi scheme can last into perpetuity is 1) gullible — the PT Barnum adage applies here, 2) must be one of the 5 virgins asking the wise to subsidize their foolishness — tough luck, not my responsibility, and 3) must have felt short-changed when God was handing out talents — to hell with your wicked laziness Matthew 25:1-30.

To refresh your memory of the definitions, I’ll refer you to the follwoing
==============
“Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)”
Insurance \In*sur”ance\, n. [From Insure.]
1. The act of insuring, or assuring, against loss or damage
by a contingent event; a contract whereby, for a
stipulated consideration, called premium, one party
undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss
by certain specified risks. Cf. Assurance, n., 6.

Note: The person who undertakes to pay in case of loss is
termed the insurer; the danger against which he
undertakes, the risk; the person protected, the
insured; the sum which he pays for the protection, the
premium; and the contract itself, when reduced to form,
the policy. –Johnson’s Cyc.

2. The premium paid for insuring property or life.
3. The sum for which life or property is insured.
4. A guaranty, security, or pledge; assurance. [Obs.]

Investment \In*vest”ment\, n.
1. The act of investing, or the state of being invested.
2. That with which anyone is invested; a vestment.
3. (Mil.) The act of surrounding, blocking up, or besieging
by an armed force, or the state of being so surrounded.
4. The laying out of money in the purchase of some species of
property; the amount of money invested, or that in which
money is invested.

“THE DEVIL’S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993)”
INSURANCE, n. An ingenious modern game of chance in which the player
is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating
the man who keeps the table.

INSURANCE AGENT: My dear sir, that is a fine house — pray let me
insure it.
HOUSE OWNER: With pleasure. Please make the annual premium so
low that by the time when, according to the tables of your
actuary, it will probably be destroyed by fire I will have
paid you considerably less than the face of the policy.
INSURANCE AGENT: O dear, no — we could not afford to do that.
We must fix the premium so that you will have paid more.
HOUSE OWNER: How, then, can _I_ afford _that_?
INSURANCE AGENT: Why, your house may burn down at any time.
There was Smith’s house, for example, which –
HOUSE OWNER: Spare me — there were Brown’s house, on the
contrary, and Jones’s house, and Robinson’s house, which –
INSURANCE AGENT: Spare _me_!
HOUSE OWNER: Let us understand each other. You want me to pay
you money on the supposition that something will occur
previously to the time set by yourself for its occurrence. In
other words, you expect me to bet that my house will not last
so long as you say that it will probably last.
INSURANCE AGENT: But if your house burns without insurance it
will be a total loss.
HOUSE OWNER: Beg your pardon — by your own actuary’s tables I
shall probably have saved, when it burns, all the premiums I
would otherwise have paid to you — amounting to more than the
face of the policy they would have bought. But suppose it to
burn, uninsured, before the time upon which your figures are
based. If I could not afford that, how could you if it were
insured?
INSURANCE AGENT: O, we should make ourselves whole from our
luckier ventures with other clients. Virtually, they pay your
loss.
HOUSE OWNER: And virtually, then, don’t I help to pay their
losses? Are not their houses as likely as mine to burn before
they have paid you as much as you must pay them? The case
stands this way: you expect to take more money from your
clients than you pay to them, do you not?
INSURANCE AGENT: Certainly; if we did not –
HOUSE OWNER: I would not trust you with my money. Very well
then. If it is _certain_, with reference to the whole body of
your clients, that they lose money on you it is _probable_,
with reference to any one of them, that _he_ will. It is
these individual probabilities that make the aggregate
certainty.
INSURANCE AGENT: I will not deny it — but look at the figures in
this pamph –
HOUSE OWNER: Heaven forbid!
INSURANCE AGENT: You spoke of saving the premiums which you would
otherwise pay to me. Will you not be more likely to squander
them? We offer you an incentive to thrift.
HOUSE OWNER: The willingness of A to take care of B’s money is
not peculiar to insurance, but as a charitable institution you
command esteem. Deign to accept its expression from a
Deserving Object.
================

Sigh, I really must stop feeding the trolls.

actus, your distraction attempt failed. Eason resigned.

‘Now I’ll quibble with what you’ve been maintaining for a while, insurance=good, investment=risky.’

I wouldn’t say insurance=good. I’d say insurance is guaranteed. good is a mixture of the two, that would vary from person to person.

‘Now, we’re being told that for just a small payment of 15%, we can get “insurance” that may or may not even match our total payment.’

We’re also taking responsibility for caring for today’s aged and infirm.

‘actus, your distraction attempt failed. Eason resigned.’

I think you assign more power to my intents than I ever do. Lets see if Hume goes too, but something tells me no.

“I’d say insurance is guaranteed”

Ring the bell, suckah, school’s in session.

Only as long as there is an economy around to back it up. Plus you miss the finer point. Insurance is designed to be a hedge against something happening. IOW, you hope you never have to use it, but if it happens, you have something to fall back on.

Investment is banking on a future outcome, ie economic growth, 99.9999% positive if diversified.

How else would insurance companies be able to cover your losses without spreading their risk among as many investments as possible? Without the ability to invest, the rates on everything you insure would easily triple or quadruple.

Dismissed.

Actus, Actus.

Seems like before we can even engage in a serious debate over SS reform, we need to examine the factors that brought SS into being. To do that, we need to first take the “fool’s gold” luster off FDR.

And I repeat, we know much more now about economics as a whole than all of the “experts” back then. This may shock you, but economics ain’t really all that complicated. La-La land is what you see when you look in the mirror.

In a nutshell, FDR was guided by demand-side economic theory (which only works in the short-term as a method of kickstarting the economy) and by his ego.
The problem with FDR is that he was great at managing a war, but sucked terribly in the economics realm. If not for the war, he would have been tarred and feathered, wheelchair and all!

Yet because of the war, he’s improperly praised as the greatest president of the 20th century — of course that mantle belongs to Reagan. While Hoover dismissed as incompetent. Actually Hoover tried mightily and would have suceeded if he wasn’t sandbagged by the dems and global events beyond his control — the GOP was in decline with both House and Senate evenly split in the latter half of Hoover’s admin.

However, thanks to “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this therefore because of this), the common fallacy of assuming that because one thing follows another, therefore the 2nd was caused by the 1st, it is difficult to assign cause and effect in the historical context until enough time has elasped. The unvarnished truth is that the Great Depression was caused by not Hooverism, but the Smoot-Hawley Act by a congress shifting to the Democrats.

Everything else was a ripple effect of the Government attempting to manage the invisible hand. Naturally the invisible hand disagreed and voted with their pocketbook. Aside from Alvin Hansen and a few others, the economic elite of FDR’s era were blinded by Keynes. Schumpeter once quipped that “they held their ground firmly; but the earthquake was shaking it beneath them.”

As an aside; Demand-side economics was embraced thru most of the years since FDR until discarded by Carter, of all people, in part because the economy was out of control and Keynes’ Grand theory wasn’t cutting it anymore. Modern day Demand-Siders include Krugman, Rubin, among others. That opened the door for Reagan to introduce the supply-side, also known as classical economics theory. Stop right here and toss Goldwater from your mind, Barry was a Demand-Sider. Supply-Siders include Laffer, Friedman, Hayek, Smith, Drucker, Forbes and co. Schwartz, Mises, Hansen and others fall somewhere in between.

In essence, Demand-Siders believe the government can do it all from above (your position), while Supply-siders take the grassroots approach regarding individual behavior fostering economic growth over the long-term. Simply put, the opposing approach to economic growth is this:
Demand-siders=trust govt to insure, supply-siders=trust individuals to invest.

Now back to FDR’s ballyhooed acumen. It is true that FDR did say “New conditions impose new requirements on government and those who conduct our government.” It is here that I really need to excerpt from THE FED AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION by Robert L. Formaini, Senior Economist and Public Policy Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. ( More good stuff that deconstructs the myth of FDR in just under 14 pages at http://www.dallasfed.org/news/educate/04ecsummit-formaini.pdf )

“Whatever policies the Fed might have followed – or did
follow – between late 1929 and 1933 were the last ones to matter
until after WW2. The Treasury took over policy, and the Fed played
a much smaller role between 1934 and the end of WW2 than it had
during the 20s and early 30s. What power there was at the Fed
shifted to the Board in Washington. The seeds for the post-WW2 Fed
we now have were sown by the Banking Act of 1935, finishing what the
Banking Act of 1933 had begun. After WW2, the regional banks became
a good deal less important than the Board, and policy became
centralized. It is hardly surprising that the Fed took a passive
role during the New Deal – FDR was not one to share power easily,
and so his Treasury Dept. – over which he had total control – became
the center for national economic policy. It would be good if one
could say it did better than the Fed had done but, of course, it
didn’t, and hardly could have given the economic capriciousness of
FDR’s attitudes and actions – all of which flowed from his general
ignorance of, and contempt for, market process and business people.

“Fundamentally, perhaps, the business cycle is a psychological
phenomenon. Only when the memory of hard times has dimmed can
confidence fully establish itself; only when confidence has led
to outrageous excess can it be checked. It was as difficult for
Mr. Hoover to stop the psychological pendulum on the downswing
as it had been for the Reserve Board to stop it on the upswing.””

That’s FDR, the greatest economist for ya!!! And if it wasn’t for the economy being mangled by know-nothing politicians, we could well not even be discussing Social Security in any shape or form today.

Of course, FDR didn’t operate in a vacuum. He also had Bernard Baruch, a prehistoric moonbat who earlier railed against Hoover’s “socialistic legislation”. Then there’s Rexford Guy Tugwell who would later confess, “We didn’t admit it at the time but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”

Truth is, FDR undid many of Hoover’s policies in his first term. Early on in his admin, FDR birthed 17 major programs, of which only 2 were of any use in combating the depression. FDR’s problem is he and his circle didn’t understand the fundamentals of aggregate demand and consequently the budget began to kill the sensitive recovery. Luckily, there was Mariner Eccles over at the Fed, who posited that a budget unbalanced could counteract a depression/downswing, thus slowing the implosion. All in all, the New Deal was ineffective and only the war saved the economy by increasing deficit spending and exports.

So why the ruckus over Bush’s attempt to grapple with the new conditions we face? Because of the CBO report saying all is rosy for the next 70 years or so? The fact that the Dems control the CBO doesn’t belie the fact that even the rosiest projection still indicate action sooner or later — snooze, we all lose, a little more every day. Of course the Dems hope that by stonewalling, they get to implement their vison of the way it ought to be fixed once they get back into power and can raise taxes. Face it, it ain’t gonna happen soon, and the truth has them over a barrel.

So back to FDR, to illustrate the talent he had around him. In 1944, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. proposed a plan for postwar Germany that called for Germany to be forced into an agrarian economy by stripping the industry. Fortunately for W. Germany, that plan was rejected, over the strenous objections of France (Wait a minute, how did France get any say in the matter? But that’s another story) and the Marshall Plan institued by Truman. On the other hand, that plan was pursued vigorously by the Russians and history is plin on the wreck that was E. Germany. In spite of getting shot down, Morgenthau went on to become influential at the Bretton Woods Conference, i.e. founding of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development which over the years would become the World Bank.

To bring the law of unintended consequence full-circle, thanks to FDR & friends, Africa and other 3rd World countries remain stunted and wrecked by flawed economic principles, espoused nowadays by the likes of Krugman.

To wit, take Kwame Nkrumah, please. Trained at Lincoln University in Pennsylvannia — don’t believe the hype on their web page — he returned to Ghana with great intentions and aspirations for helping Ghana along with it’s efforts to become the 1st African nation to gain independence from the Colonial Powers. Unfortunately, his head was stuffed with flawed economic theories that postulated that the government could manage the economy in perpetuity. One of his first acts upon taking power was to nationalize industry, starting with agricultural export by establishing a national board by which all cocoa farmers would sell their products to. The idea was to dampen market price fluctuations. Sounds good in principle, however, it only promoted greed and corruption evidenced by the rampant pillaging of surpluses. Like all “good” bureaucracies, it wasn’t enough to leave well enough alone. Plenty of Nkrumah key supporters wanted a piece of the action and soon, there was a national board for timber, coffee, you name it. (Disclaimer: after education was nationalized, my dad was hired by Nkrumah to head up the “Dept of Deaf Education”. Like the good American entrepreneur that he was, it didn’t take long for him to establish and oversee 12 schools across the land).

Long story short, within a few years, the Ghanian economy was devastated, by 1963, basic foods became scarce and millions suffered malnutrition. Simultaneously, Nkrumah gravitated to marxism and flirted heavily with Russia & China. While visiting China, the Ghanian Army launched a coup and Nkrumah was forced into exile in nearby Guinea where he would die. Ironically, in retrospect, colonialism under British rule was better than the chaotic aftermath of demand-side economics and centralized socialism. To add insult to injury, what the colonials failed to “exploit” in natural resources, the IMF and World Bank succeeded in bankrupting financially under utopian ideas of dead socialist white men, specifically Marx, Keynes et al.

Ponder that before you rush to defend the misbegotten legacy of FDR and socialist attitudes that the government is somehow responsible for taking care of you and yours. Next time your professors sell you a load of leftist blarney, please do try to apply a little critical thinking instead of swallowing their tripe whole. Of course, being too critical could affect your GPA, but that’s for your conscience to deal with.

Here’s your homework assignment.
* An example of Affirmative Action in Malaysia: http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003092.asp
* Frédéric Bastiat(1801-1850) a French economist and his Selected Essays on Political Economy (Government has no business taking money away from the income earner for economic purposes): http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
* A reformed SS should be compared to what it can currently afford, not what it promises: http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2004/20041107mm.htm

La Shawn thanks for the bandwidth, I didn’t mean to go on so long. I’ll try to do better next time

Another debunking of the silly claims that Brit Hume “lied” that actus tried to use to distract from Eason Jordan’s real conduct.