Sowell: Obama Win Would Be Historic Tragedy

[rayboyusmc]

Wow, I didn't know Sowell was a strong repbublican conservative.

 

[WhiteLion]

Wow, I didn't know Sowell was a strong repbublican conservative.

rayboyusmc i know Sowell is a conservative which way he leans is of no real concern to me, however his article on an Obama presidency is right on time and i would trust him over anything Obama has to say hands down...

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Thoams Sowell ???



You gotta be joking. You mean there's still people who think Thomas Sowell has any credibility?



Sowell is to the right what they accuse the left of doing with black faces. He's "The Spook Who Sat By the Door" .. and they did the same thing with JC Watts, until he couldn't take it anymore .. and with Alan Keyes, until he proved himself to be a total fool.

All that need be known about Thomas Sowell is that he has been one of the chief apologists for all the failures of the Bush Administration.

Here's a couple of his gems ...

"The real problem is that many Democrats have bet the rent money on an American defeat in Iraq, and without that defeat they could find themselves in big trouble in the 2008 elections."

WHAT???

But that's not the punch line .. here's the punch line .. Wednesday, September 12, 2007, that's the date he said that stupid shit. Who in the hell did not know the political outcomes of the Iraq War by Wednesday, September 12, 2007?

What this demonstrates is that Thomas Sowell is an ideolouge .. PERIOD. Everything that comes out of his mouth is coated in right-wing bullshit.

"If Iraq is not connected to terrorism, why are so many terrorists desperate to drive us out." .. excuse me mr. genuius .. but the IRAQIS are the ones driving us out .. which is what usually happens when you invade other nations based on lies and deceit and mass-murder countless innocent people. We were fighting Iraqis. That "foreign fighter" crap was put to bed long ago. Would there be other arabs that hate America for invading an arab nation? Absolutely. But totally in the main, we are fighting Iraqis .. otherwise known as freedom fighters.

And, excuse me mr. genius but Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the "terrorism" of 9/11.

Given the track record of Sowell, which coincides with the track record of the Bush Administration .. exactly how much "gravitas" do you think should be given to the thoughts of Thomas Sowell?

 

[9 Volt]

The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis - George Reisman - Mises Institute

The utter absurdity of statements claiming that the present political-economic environment of the United States in some sense represents laissez-faire capitalism becomes as glaringly obvious as anything can be when one keeps in mind the extremely limited role of government under laissez-faire and then considers the following facts about the present-day United States:

1.

Government spending in the United States currently equals more than forty percent of national income, i.e., the sum of all wages and salaries and profits and interest earned in the country. This is without counting any of the massive off-budget spending such as that on account of the government enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nor does it count any of the recent spending on assorted "bailouts." What this means is that substantially more than forty dollars of every one hundred dollars of output are appropriated by the government against the will of the individual citizens who produce that output. The money and the goods involved are turned over to the government only because the individual citizens wish to stay out of jail. Their freedom to dispose of their own incomes and output is thus violated on a colossal scale. In contrast, under laissez-faire capitalism, government spending would be on such a modest scale that a mere revenue tariff might be sufficient to support it. The corporate and individual income taxes, inheritance and capital gains taxes, and social security and Medicare taxes would not exist.
2.

There are presently fifteen federal cabinet departments, nine of which exist for the very purpose of respectively interfering with housing, transportation, healthcare, education, energy, mining, agriculture, labor, and commerce, and virtually all of which nowadays routinely ride roughshod over one or more important aspects of the economic freedom of the individual. Under laissez-faire capitalism, eleven of the fifteen cabinet departments would cease to exist and only the departments of justice, defense, state, and treasury would remain. Within those departments, moreover, further reductions would be made, such as the abolition of the IRS in the Treasury Department and the Antitrust Division in the Department of Justice.
3.

The economic interference of today's cabinet departments is reinforced and amplified by more than one hundred federal agencies and commissions, the most well known of which include, besides the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the FBI and CIA, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA. Under laissez-faire capitalism, all such agencies and commissions would be done away with, with the exception of the FBI, which would be reduced to the legitimate functions of counterespionage and combating crimes against person or property that take place across state lines.
4.

To complete this catalog of government interference and its trampling of any vestige of laissez faire, as of the end of 2007, the last full year for which data are available, the Federal Register contained fully seventy-three thousand pages of detailed government regulations. This is an increase of more than ten thousand pages since 1978, the very years during which our system, according to one of The New York Times articles quoted above, has been "tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules." Under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be no Federal Register. The activities of the remaining government departments and their subdivisions would be controlled exclusively by duly enacted legislation, not the rule-making of unelected government officials.
5.

And, of course, to all of this must be added the further massive apparatus of laws, departments, agencies, and regulations at the state and local level. Under laissez-faire capitalism, these too for the most part would be completely abolished and what remained would reflect the same kind of radical reductions in the size and scope of government activity as those carried out on the federal level.

What this brief account has shown is that the politico-economic system of the United States today is so far removed from laissez-faire capitalism that it is closer to the system of a police state. The ability of the media to ignore all of the massive government interference that exists today and to characterize our present economic system as one of laissez faire and economic freedom marks it as, if not profoundly dishonest, then as nothing less than delusional.

This entire piece focuses on DOMESTIC regulation as it relates to our current economic crisis. Friedman Ideology has never been used domestically because by definition Friedmanism requires the removal of ALL government interference, cost controls, complete privitization, no trade restrictions, etc. That will never completely happen here. What we have seen is Friedmanite policy makers de-regulating and loosening things to the point that the entire system fails. Friedman himself is probably rolling over in his grave because he knew it would never work here. This is a case where the professor would most certainly scold his students for not completely following the algorithm. It sounds to me like the author is a Friedmanite who is pissed as hell at his government for tinkering in Friedmanism and causing this collapse. Friedmans disciples will clearly say that you cannot use this ideology unless it is used COMPLETELY, which would destroy the middle class in the country in a matter of months as we saw in Argetina, Chile, Poland, Brazil etc.

 

[WhiteLion]

Thoams Sowell ???



You gotta be joking. You mean there's still people who think Thomas Sowell has any credibility?



Sowell is to the right what they accuse the left of doing with black faces. He's "The Spook Who Sat By the Door" .. and they did the same thing with JC Watts, until he couldn't take it anymore .. and with Alan Keyes, until he proved himself to be a total fool.

All that need be known about Thomas Sowell is that he has been one of the chief apologists for all the failures of the Bush Administration.

Here's a couple of his gems ...

"The real problem is that many Democrats have bet the rent money on an American defeat in Iraq, and without that defeat they could find themselves in big trouble in the 2008 elections."

WHAT???

But that's not the punch line .. here's the punch line .. Wednesday, September 12, 2007, that's the date he said that stupid shit. Who in the hell did not know the political outcomes of the Iraq War by Wednesday, September 12, 2007?

What this demonstrates is that Thomas Sowell is an ideolouge .. PERIOD. Everything that comes out of his mouth is coated in right-wing bullshit.

"If Iraq is not connected to terrorism, why are so many terrorists desperate to drive us out." .. excuse me mr. genuius .. but the IRAQIS are the ones driving us out .. which is what usually happens when you invade other nations based on lies and deceit and mass-murder countless innocent people. We were fighting Iraqis. That "foreign fighter" crap was put to bed long ago. Would there be other arabs that hate America for invading an arab nation? Absolutely. But totally in the main, we are fighting Iraqis .. otherwise known as freedom fighters.

And, excuse me mr. genius but Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the "terrorism" of 9/11.

Given the track record of Sowell, which coincides with the track record of the Bush Administration .. exactly how much "gravitas" do you think should be given to the thoughts of Thomas Sowell?

Millions upon millions of people listen to Sowell, who in hell listens to YOU???and your ranting belligerant BS...

 

[WhiteLion]

This entire piece focuses on DOMESTIC regulation as it relates to our current economic crisis. Friedman Ideology has never been used domestically because by definition Friedmanism requires the removal of ALL government interference, cost controls, complete privitization, no trade restrictions, etc. That will never completely happen here. What we have seen is Friedmanite policy makers de-regulating and loosening things to the point that the entire system fails. Friedman himself is probably rolling over in his grave because he knew it would never work here. This is a case where the professor would most certainly scold his students for not completely following the algorithm. It sounds to me like the author is a Friedmanite who is pissed as hell at his government for tinkering in Friedmanism and causing this collapse. Friedmans disciples will clearly say that you cannot use this ideology unless it is used COMPLETELY, which would destroy the middle class in the country in a matter of months as we saw in Argetina, Chile, Poland, Brazil etc.

Are you DUMB??? the issue here is Mr Sowells article and the contents thereof...i dont give a flying rats ass about his educational mentors... at least Black as Coal has that much sense...

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Millions upon millions of people listen to Sowell, who in hell listens to YOU???and your ranting belligerant BS...

Millions of people think George Bush is a great president.

Millions of people listen to Limbaugh and Hannity, both of whom have been wrong about every goddamn thing that has come out of their mouths.

What's your point?

Let me help you out .. you don't have one and you don't have anything to refute what I just said about Sowell.

 

[9 Volt]

Are you DUMB??? the issue here is Mr Sowells article and the contents thereof...i dont give a flying rats ass about his educational mentors... at least Black as Coal has that much sense...

The post was in response to skulls article. White Lion, I love you, but sooner or later you're going to have to admit that you're a moron.

 

[WhiteLion]

Millions of people think George Bush is a great president.

Millions of people listen to Limbaugh and Hannity, both of whom have been wrong about every goddamn thing that has come out of their mouths.

What's your point?

Let me help you out .. you don't have one and you don't have anything to refute what I just said about Sowell.

WTF's your point, I posted the article to in hopes of comments one way or the other, i dont really give a flying rat shit what you think about(Limbaugh and Hannity their irrelevent to this discussion!!) And much like William F. Buckley said, you can keep your goddamn comments for all i care.........this article is more of a informative posting???Point is, i believe Thomas Sowell is right on all accounts and i dont have to refute your horse-shit, your entitled to believe WTF you want, and so is everyone else that responds to this post...

 

[WhiteLion]

The post was in response to skulls article. White Lion, I love you, but sooner or later you're going to have to admit that you're a moron.

It truely takes a moron to know a moron ...moron??? I was trying to keep you on the article subject not wondering of on Mr Sowells educational mentors or philosophies.......as you brought it all up(MILTON FRIEDMAN and laissez-faire ideology) and skull responded...

 

[9 Volt]

It truely takes a moron to know a moron ...moron??? I was trying to keep you on the article subject not wondering of on Mr Sowells educational mentors or philosophies.......as you brought it all up(MILTON FRIEDMAN and laissez-faire ideology) and skull responded...

Still love ya. Sorry I using a quote from Big Lebowski which would have required me to say f***kg moron but thought that would come across as harsh. I was joking.

 

[WhiteLion]

Still love ya. Sorry I using a quote from Big Lebowski which would have required me to say f***kg moron but thought that would come across as harsh. I was joking.

Bah its all good i feel ive made my self quite clear

 

[9 Volt]

Bah its all good i feel ive made my self quite clear

I think we've both made ourselves clear. Happy Halloween

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hmm. Interesting to me that we have guys like Thomas Sowell with his laissez-faire ideology to thank for this economic shitstorm. Sowell is a Milton Friedman fellow. Obama is also a Chicago School guy with Friedmanite roots. The problem with guys like Sowell is that any policy deviation from TOTAL unfettered capitalism sets them off and usually results in a smear piece like this. He's a radical, fundamentalist who believes that their should be ZERO oversight of the markets. I suspect he's pissed to see that Obama is actually taking a more cautious economic route by appointing economic advisors from both ideologies: Friedmanism and Keynesianism. If Austan Goolsbee and his team were the only economic advisors in the Obama camp, Sowell would be writing in support of Obama...NO QUESTION. The other issues he writes about are all complete fluff. Friedmanism has failed over and over again and has destroyed middle classes in countries around the globe. Friedman's name is even a liability at U Chicago these days. Having said all of this, I stand by my projection that Obama will turn out to be more of a capitalist than anyone expects.

This entire piece focuses on DOMESTIC regulation as it relates to our current economic crisis. Friedman Ideology has never been used domestically because by definition Friedmanism requires the removal of ALL government interference, cost controls, complete privitization, no trade restrictions, etc. That will never completely happen here. What we have seen is Friedmanite policy makers de-regulating and loosening things to the point that the entire system fails. Friedman himself is probably rolling over in his grave because he knew it would never work here. This is a case where the professor would most certainly scold his students for not completely following the algorithm. It sounds to me like the author is a Friedmanite who is pissed as hell at his government for tinkering in Friedmanism and causing this collapse. Friedmans disciples will clearly say that you cannot use this ideology unless it is used COMPLETELY, which would destroy the middle class in the country in a matter of months as we saw in Argetina, Chile, Poland, Brazil etc.

Laissez faire is what you all are blaming this mess on. The article from Mises is used to demonstrate that we do not have a laissez faire system; not even close.

The fact is, if you want to blame deregulation for the mess we're in as BHO likes to do

Transcript of second McCain, Obama debate - CNN.com

And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.

So BHO blames deregulation but then he gushes over Clinton saying:

Heaping praise on President Bush's predecessor, Obama said of Clinton: "In case all of you forgot, this is what it's like to have a great president."

But here's the rub. The financial services industry was not deregulated under GW.

Meltdowns and Myths: Did Deregulation Cause the Financial Crisis?

More typically, of course, the word deregulation has been used as shorthand to describe the repeal or easing of particular rules. To the extent there was a heyday of such deregulation, it was in the 1970s and 1980s. It was at this time that economists--and consumer activists--began to question many longstanding restrictions on financial services.

The most important such restrictions were rules banning banks from operating in more than one state. Such rules were largely eliminated by 1994 through state and federal action. Few observers lament their passing today, and because regional and nationwide banks are far better able to balance risk, this "deregulation" has helped mitigate, rather than contribute to, the instability of the system.

Who was pres. in 1994?

Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Beyond

The next major "deregulation" of financial services was the repeal of the Depression-era prohibition on banks engaging in the securities business. The ban was formally ended by the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which followed a series of decisions by regulators easing its impact.

While not without controversy, the net effect of Gramm-Leach-Bliley has likely been to alleviate rather than further the current financial crisis.

In fact, President Bill Clinton--who signed the reform bill into law--defended the legislation in a recent interview, saying, "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."[3]

So let's get this straight. Clinton deregulates banks. Deregulation is blamed for all of our current problems. But Clinton says HIS deregulation actually made dealing with the current situation easier. And obviously BHO agrees. But riddle me this if the deregulation that Clinton signed helped out economy then how can the deregulation that never happened under GW hurt our economy?


Regulatory Agency Trends

But what of the regulatory agencies? Did they pursue a deregulatory agenda during the Bush Administration? Again, the answer seems to be no.

In terms of rulemaking--the promulgation of specific rules by regulatory agencies--the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is by far the most active among agencies in the financial realm. Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, the SEC completed 23 proceedings since the beginning of the Bush Administration that resulted in a substantive and major change (defined as an economic effect of $100 million or more) in regulatory burdens. Of those, only eight--about a third--lessened burdens.[4] Perhaps surprisingly, the Bush record in this regard is actually less deregulatory than that of the Clinton Administration, which during its second term lessened burdens in nine out of 20 such rulemaking proceedings.

A False Narrative

In the wake of the financial crisis gripping the nation, it is tempting to blame "deregulation" for triggering the problem. After all, if the meltdown were caused by the ill-advised elimination of necessary rules, the answer would be easy: Restore those rules.

But that storyline is simply not true. Not only was there was little deregulation of financial services during the Bush years, but most of the regulatory reforms achieved in earlier years mitigated, rather than contributed to, the crisis.

This, of course, does not mean that no regulatory changes should be considered. In the wake of the current crisis, debate over the scope and method of regulation in financial markets is inevitable and, in fact, necessary. But this cannot be a debate over returning to a regulatory Nirvana that never existed. Any new regulatory system would be just that--complete with all the uncertainty and prospects for unintended consequences that define such a system. Policymakers must not pretend otherwise.

And here is more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_runs_against_clinton_pro.html

on regulation in general, my CEI colleague Wayne Crews notes in his study "10,000 Commandments" that the Bush administration has set records for the tens of thousands of pages it put in the Federal Register. So to the extent that Obama says he will reverse financial deregulation, what he would largely be overturning are the financial modernizations Clinton signed that Clinton administration officials agree led to the ‘90s prosperity.

Again I ask how does Clintons major deregulation ease the burdens of the current economy and GW's lack of deregulation cause the current problems?

 

[Skull Pilot]

BUMP

I really want an answer to this one, don't you?

 

[PeterS]

Thomas Sowell
Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California Thomas Sowell | Home or Thomas Sowell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
had this to say to the public pryor to the upcoming elections....

By: Thomas Sowell
Some elections are routine, some are important, and some are historic. If Sen. John McCain wins this election, it probably will go down in history as routine. But if Sen. Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic — and catastrophic.

Lets see, we have the S&L bailout in 89, the derivative bailout in 98, and today a complete bailout of our entire financial industry. Me thinks Sowell is trying to bit the hand that is clearly feeding him...

 

[cristal]

John McCain is no war hero! He is a POW. That alone does not make you a war hero. John McCain does not have the temperament to be president. He is an out of control hot head, that blows up sporadically at the first little thing that ticks him off. He is mentally unstable from his time in captivity, and he has no class. He referred to his first wife as a "****" in a fit of rage and disrespects women! He is the Manchurian Candidate, and he aided his captors with information and made 32 propaganda videos for the enemy. It is a proven fact that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 92% of the time.

Barack Obama in comparison has class and he has the temperament to make rational decisions. John McCain still needs to be educated on economics. John McCain made the stupid mistake of picking Sarah Palin, hoping desperately to capture some of the Hillary voters. This is a pathetic strategy and a dumb one. Sarah Palin is no Hillary!

Do you think that having a cool demeanor makes you qualified to become President of the United States?

I thought that having governmental experience, i.e., Senatorial, Gubernatorial and the Mayorship, qualifies you for the position of President.

It is beyond me, to see so called intelligent people, buying into the crap, regarding Obama's demeanor. His mantra for "hope and change" - which is nothing more than a sales pitch. People that has not bought into Obama's crap, are people like me. With the ability to discern. To separate the wheat from the chaff.

When he fucks up the presidency - if he were to win, just remember how your dumb asses got hood-winked, while he sits in the oval office laughing his ass off, at his ability to hoodwink 51% of the United States.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

WTF's your point, I posted the article to in hopes of comments one way or the other, i dont really give a flying rat shit what you think about(Limbaugh and Hannity their irrelevent to this discussion!!) And much like William F. Buckley said, you can keep your goddamn comments for all i care.........this article is more of a informative posting???Point is, i believe Thomas Sowell is right on all accounts and i dont have to refute your horse-shit, your entitled to believe WTF you want, and so is everyone else that responds to this post...

If you don't want opposing views to your threads, perhaps you shouldn't post any.

Maybe this is new to you, but questioning the credibility of someone you psot as an authority is relevent to the conversation. Sowell has been wrong as hell on damn near everything he's written, especially during the last 8 years .. yet, I'm not supposed to question why anyone should be listening to him?

I don't give a rat's shit if you like my posts or not. I post what is quantifiable truth .. as demonstrated by you who couldn't challenge what I said .. only challenge my right to say it.

You're right, you don't have to refute anything I say .. and you haven't.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

BUMP

I really want an answer to this one, don't you?

Laissez-faire .. SEE: Robber Barons

Of course an unregulated system is to blame.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Do you think that having a cool demeanor makes you qualified to become President of the United States?

I thought that having governmental experience, i.e., Senatorial, Gubernatorial and the Mayorship, qualifies you for the position of President.

It is beyond me, to see so called intelligent people, buying into the crap, regarding Obama's demeanor. His mantra for "hope and change" - which is nothing more than a sales pitch. People that has not bought into Obama's crap, are people like me. With the ability to discern. To separate the wheat from the chaff.

When he fucks up the presidency - if he were to win, just remember how your dumb asses got hood-winked, while he sits in the oval office laughing his ass off, at his ability to hoodwink 51% of the United States.

Possibly the most important qualification for president is intelligence. The president delegates responsibilities and manages those who actually do the work. Bush had gobernatorial experience, but was woefully short on intelligence .. thus republicans, who lacked the intelligence to stop him, will now pay the price for their miserable failures due to lack of intelligence.

"fucks up the presidency" .. you mean more fucked up than the worst administration in American history .. which it sounds like YOU voted for .. and a president who will leave office with the lowest approval ratings and the highest negatives in American history .. who it sounds like YOU voted for.

You mean worse than that?