Now I saw yesterday's Fox and Friends. They were trying to tell us that President Obama is, somehow, against the American dream.
That is a ridiculous accusation against President Obama.
Thankfully others have noted the outrageous nature of that accusation.
I would also like to comment about Gretchen Carlton's interview with Anne C. Heller, a biographer of the free market thinker, Ayn Rand.
It is possible not to be productive with money.
CARLSON: So is this the world that Rand was trying to warn us about, Anne?
HELLER: Absolutely, it is. For her, enough money was a contradiction in terms, because money was productivity and creativity and honorable enterprise.
It is possible not to be creative with money.
It is possible for money to be gained outside of an honorable enterprise. Illegal drugs for instance.
Recklessly giving mortgages to people who cannot pay them off is not an honorable enterprise.
The most creative solution Wall Street could devise out of the Lehman Brothers crisis was to be bailed out by the government. That is not capitalism, that is Socialism for the rich.
The attempted reforms being undertaken in Congress is an attempt to make it impossible for a Lehman Brothers-like situation to emerge.
No regulation? That is what has caused the world economy to nearly die the way it did in 2008. Banks were allowed to just give loans to anyone without checking that they could actually repay it all. Then when people began to foreclose on mortgages, so many that those who owned these mortgages were unable to recoup their losses and so this horrible money hole began to grew until the crisis of 2008.
CARLSON: Would [Ayn Rand] have been in favor of what's being proposed now on Capitol Hill as far as financial overhaul?
HELLER: Absolutely not. She was against government regulation from beginning to end. She was for a purely laissez-faire government.
A purely laissez-faire government? As far as I can see that is a mere abstraction that cannot conform to reality. Government is a part of society. The economy is a part of society. It is natural that they will interact with each. They cannot be neatly separated.
In a healthy economy money flows around freely. The transfer of money is the blood flow of the economy. When money stop flowing that is when we have a recession.
If the government stops spending as well during a recession there is even less money circulating in the economy than before. This makes the situation even worse than before. The blood pressure of the economy has dropped even more.
There is even less spending now. Blood circulation has just stopped.
That is why governments have to spend in a recession. It spends money and the blood pressure of the economy goes up. More money is flowing around now. That is good.
When there is enough money being spent, being actively used, then the healthy economy is restored.
So we see that there is a beneficial place for the government in the economy.
It should also be noted that before the Great Depression orthodox wisdom said that in a recession the government must cut spending and not get involved in the economy. As explained above that is the worse thing a government can do in a recession.
That is like having a patient who has dangerously low blood pressure, and then decreasing it even more, making the patient even more sick.
That is what Hoover did. The Depression only got worse.
Rooselvelt did the opposite and did what he could bring the economy back to health.
The government is not like a private household that can run out of money. The government prints the money. The government is the source of money. Therefore the government can spend more during hard times.
Therefore this dogmatic view of laissez-faire market does not impress me. I do think that help the toiling people who are within this crisis of the Great Recession.