Quote:I'd disagree. I oppose the Central government approach of "taking over" private industry, and imposing, and strong arming the owners of industries to the governments solutions.They have not "taken over" anything, in the sense of outright nationalization. They've been bailing out companies; the companies are free to accept or decline the money. Some have declined, and have not been "strong armed" into anything. Others have accepted, and once you're taking billions in taxpayer money, you no longer get unfettered rights to fritter it away however you wish. Can't have your independence and sell it to the government at the same time.
Frankly, he should have nationalized the troubled banks right at the start of this mess, ripped the bandage off, and gotten on with things. But alas. The government is allergic to nationalization, so it will only come too late, if at all.
Quote:And, if by "Reaganesque gift for inspiration", you mean "hasn't left campaign mode", then I agree.Plenty of politicians never leave campaign mode. Few actually succeed in building or maintaining the kind of popularity Obama has. This is a matter of talent, not strategy.
Quote:Probably because we are both literate in Ludwig Von Mises, and the Austrian school of economics. As we saw in 2000, a bubble cannot be deflated by diverting the over inflated value of a thing elsewhere. But, rather than deflating the bubble by allowing those who invested, or acted poorly to accept their risk and suffer their loss, instead the US government again has stepped in to intervene. Now, it is the tax payers, and their children, and their children's children who will suffer the loss. Fundamentally, nothing has changed within the economic structures that allowed things to get cock-eyed in the first place. So far, all that has happened is some amount of damage control at the expense of an economic system we call "Capitalism", but the fire is still burning out of control and the cause for the ignition has not been addressed.The problem is that the economy is not a series of discrete investors, each in their own little boxes, reaping rewards and suffering consequences all by their lonesomes. Once substantial parts of the economy start to collapse, other parts, which were previously secure, start to fail as well. Then, people lose their jobs, and stop spending money, and can't get credit. The velocity of money drops, and the whole economy goes into depression. With nominal interest rates bottomed out, the only effective way left for the government to mitigate the problem is through spending. The idea that this risk can be borne by those who made bad investments is simply unrealistic. The modern economy simply does not work that way, and making it work that way would require a total retooling of the whole system, which is hardly feasible in the present crisis.
Now, maybe you're willing to bite the bullet, and run the US economy into a major depression while the market slowly sorts itself out. Certainly that would be the Austrian medicine.
-Jester
Edit, for the link: "Don't take my word for it, this guy over here is predicting the future! With Mayans thrown in for good measure!"
I don't think hyperinflation is very likely, and neither does, say, Paul Krugman, or Brad DeLong. The increase in gold prices and civil unrest are all based on the same fear. The Fed is simply not interested in generating massive inflation. Moderate-to-high at most, but nothing that will cause a gigantic flight to gold or, gods forbid, rioting and a police state. Could be wrong. Don't think I am. Income tax levels are so low they make Ronald Reagan look like Lenin; that's a lot of potential revenue, no inflation needed. I predict modest inflation, some tax raises, an increased debt load, and a new look at medical care. The economy will do badly, but not end-of-the-world badly.