Oh, this just cracks me up.
Resistance Grows to Obama’s Bigger Government, the Reuters headline says—and of course, I retort, “‘Bout damn time!” And one of the brainy brigade quoted in the article – well, here’s the beginning of his contribution:
As the enormous cost of the Obama's effort to stimulate the economy grows, many are weighing just how far government should be extending its powers. ....
"The question I think we need to figure out as a country is what is the proper role of government?" said David Moss, professor of economic history at Harvard Business School.
Regulation of the financial system to contain risk has not been adequate or effective, he said. "So on the financial front we want to try to find a Goldilocks scenario of not too much and not too little."
Not that I’m arguing for regulation, but it’s hard to say with any authority that it’s been either adequate or effective when: 1] enforcement of the laws is mostly illusory; 2] they are constantly changing; 3] lobbying by the financial giants usually means the laws change in corporations’ favor; 4] regulations create loopholes and other ways to game the system, and that’s what some of the players count on; and 5] the campaign system in this country keeps politicians beholden to the deep pockets that also have a lot of power on Wall Street. And let’s not forget that investing in the stock market or other financial instruments is inherently risky—the only things that can genuinely minimize that are as level a playing field as possible, and no places for any bones to be buried.
Anyway, this isn’t the real gem Prof. Moss is credited with in this article. He gets the last word, and it is what I am starting to think is typical Harvard cluelessness:
"I think he's [Obama’s] trying to reframe the role of government," Moss said. "There's actually quite a general consensus that we veered too far in one direction, that is reluctance to use government authority when needed."
Yeah. Try telling that one to the surviving Davidians after Waco, or Elián González, or Carl Drega, or Peter McWilliams, or anyone who’s been through airport security post–9/11. Resistance is growing because gov hasn’t gotten involved when it should’ve. Riiiiight.
And yet I seem to know lots of people who'd agree with that guy
I agree with you ... Wow, government not intrusive ENOUGH? And yet in the circles I mostly travel (parents at kids' activities) that's pretty much the complaint I hear. It could be where I live (Vermont) but they seem to be looking through different lenses than I am so that issues like intrusive airport security or people imprisoned for medical marijuana use, or Waco especially, aren't really even in their field of vision. They're more likely to be upset that the Republicans tried to block Obama's bailout plan. I hope you're right that resistance really is growing against all this huge government growth, but being surrounded by the opposite camp here, I sometimes feel really an oddball.
Me, too.
Part of it might be the parent mindset, which in the main does seem to strengthen the desire for safety in most people. Here in WA, the state is allegedly split, between the progressive liberal-types concentrated in Seattle and a few other western cities and the conservative rural types. I see a little that supports this claim, but more to your point, I still feel an oddball when amongst my neighbors (loosely speaking).
Well, that’s what the article said, not me; for my part I think resistance is growing to the ongoing spectacle of draining those who can least afford it (us little guys) so the Goldman Sachs and Citi banksters can continue with their vampiric businesses and bonuses, at the same time as the little guys are losing jobs and “value” in their homes. It’s a step in the right direction, but just that; I see little evidence of a groundswell of individuals thinking for themselves, seeking contrarian information, nor taking ideas all the way to their most fundamental level. If people were doing that I think we’d be seeing a lot more action against the state. But, I could be wrong, and this time I would be delighted to be shown wrong.
Sadly...
I talk to a lot of people on both sides of this issue. Some think that "the people" are starting to awaken and at least a good number of them will soon start to take hold. But in the next breath they are talking about getting "good people" to run for sheriff so they can kick out the feds. Or they are pinning a tea bag to their collars to "send a message."
Can you spell pipe dream? I knew you could...
On the other hand, almost as many people are at least starting to say that the only real change for the better will come AFTER a total (or mostly) collapse of the economy and the chaos/violence that will follow. They contend that the people who are now totally dependent on the state, one way or another (including the hired goons and bureaucrats) will be totally helpless when the checks stop coming and will soon resort to theft and murder when they get hungry. Then those who have prepared will need to defend themselves, for sure.
I tend to agree with the second bunch, especially for people who live in cities and crowded places like the coastal states.
It is a terribly uncomfortable thing to contemplate, and I hope that I am very wrong.
So do I.
It seems to me that the total collapse of the fiat money system (worldwide) would be a wonderful thing. And in that process people may find that making things and trading and bartering with each other (as Sunni suggested contra to my post on barter being wrongheaded) may flourish. What I see now as the problem is mostly the government's prohibitions on almost everything. You can't do anything without paying a fee, submitting a plan, brown nosing some asshole behind a desk somewhere and so on. I don't know that it is so much that people don't WANT to work and be creative, it's just that you will get destroyed or thrown in jail if you do. So perhaps (with my rose colored glasses on here) what may result from this collapse is not so much the looting that you expect to see, Mama, but rather the wholesale disregard of government on a massive scale. And THAT would be a wondrous thing, I do believe. When people finally, in desperation, say SCREW THIS SHIT, I'm going to just go to work and make and sell, and so on... That may be the lesson that's needed that the great majority of the populace who will not study Austrian Economics and such will learn at the gut level rather than the above the ears level.
Of course, keeping your powder dry is simply a good idea at any time.
The people I fear the most are the laid off bureaucrats who think they have a right to live off of the backs and paychecks and sweat of others. Of course it could be that I'm wrong, that they are such spineless worms they'd never have the guts to do anything that actually required taking a stand.
(See how I started off all positive and ended up in the toilet? I don't think that was my plan.)
- NonE
Not that simple
I have no doubt in the world that a good number of people will shake off their dependency and learn to live their own lives. I see much of that going on right now where I live, even though few are truly dependent on government here.
The agriculture and school subsidies are still considered sacred, but even the ranchers are starting to see the barbed wire under the velvet glove.
The problem is that there are a vast number of variables in the human animal, and they are going to react to hardship and real hunger in a thousand ways, not just a few.
I worked for many long years among the mean and sick elements of the inner cities of Southern California as a nurse. I watched their reaction to serious change and challenges. I know beyond a doubt that most of them have absolutely no idea what it means to be responsible for themselves, and so will probably not stumble on the knowledge even as they lay starving to death. If they can watch their children die of preventable disease and accidents and blame "the rich" for it, I seriously doubt they will understand that "the rich" person who owns the grocery store does not "owe" them all the food and goods they think they need, simply because they are "poor."
And I could go on for pages with examples.
I'm afraid that those who are currently dependent on government checks, food stamps, chronically unemployed and so forth will respond to the end of those things with anger, frustration, fear and ultimately relatively mindless violence against their perceived oppressors (usually "the rich" or "whitie"). That is how they respond to most challenges now, so why should poverty and starvation be any different?
Then there are the mobs of absolutely vicious, amoral, strung out and incredibly damaged young people, gangs, and the predators who feed off of them. They will see the turmoil and anger of the above folks as a perfect opportunity to gain control of vast areas of the city. They steal the food, gasoline, etc. and provide it for a price... the black market at it's worst. All of the worst features of the "war on drugs" would operate here, especially as the remaining government fought harder and harder to maintain control, killing those who resist.
Which brings us to the last group - the government employees, from meter maids to the large groups of well armed thugs called police. And they ARE well armed. So it is a little naive to think there would not be serious violence and bloodshed, regardless of which side of the equation they were playing. It won't matter if they join the gangs and black market players, or stay with the armed force of the remaining government... even the otherwise peaceful, ordinary people will be caught in the middle - and in the crossfire.
And that brings me back to the firm conviction that the cities are where the worst of the violence and bloodshed will take place, and the very worst location for survival -no matter how much you understand freedom, barter, or any of the rest of it. A bullet or a knife doesn't have any way to tell you from any other schmuck it runs into... And the gangbanger or rogue cop behind it won't care.
Kumbaya, kumbaya...
(just had to throw that in for a bit of levity, lest the entire thing sink beneath the waves...)
;-)
- NonE