In a busy stretch, here's some reading to keep you busy:
Here is a very good article on the current row over the Chrysler secured vs. unsecured loans and how it stands to play out in bankruptcy court.
American Thinker has the Top Ten Reasons why Obama's economic policies will not succeed.
The American Spectator explains the four pillars of Obamaism.
2 comments:
“We’re not saying anything bad is going to happen to you,” the tough says, “but the big boss is going to be very disappointed in you if you don’t take the deal. By the way, how’s your little girl? Is she still going to school down on Federal Street?” The investor caves. Well, ignore the theatrics for a moment. The beauty of bonds, over stocks, is that the investor knows up front what his or her return will be if left to maturity. I understand that bankruptcy changes the rules, but must we even be required to observe that the purpose of investment is profit? Thus, the manner in which the courts settle investor’s claims are not only important from the standpoint of justice … it is also important from the aspect of investor confidence in free market capitalism. They should settle the claims of creditors first, because they are owed their money, and then bondholders because their returns are guaranteed. It may not be an accident that federal attorneys wish to unsettle investor confidence, particularly when government control of corporations is, I believe, the goal of the Øbama Administration. But as to the intimidation … hey, it’s Chicago politics. That’s what the American people elected to high office.
I agree that the Top Ten Reasons were interesting, even if simplistic and presumptive. What Mr. de Bary wrote is true enough, but he underestimates Øbama if he assumes that the president is devoid of a plan for America. The assumption that Øbama doesn’t know what he’s doing is dangerously false and misleading; it allows Øbama to rely on his likeable personae to achieve popular latitude. People think that Øbama is “doing the best he can.” They think that because (a) they don’t know beans about economics, and (b) they want him to succeed, even if only through self-delusion. It was, after all, Bush’s fault. Let us speak clearly: Øbama knows exactly what he is doing; the economy is the vehicle he is using to get us to where he wants this country to be: extraordinarily large government, and far fewer personal and economic liberties. With that said, can anyone tell me what a “free lance observer of macroeconomics in contemporary society” is? Is this a paid position?
As for the Four Pillars (sounds very Islamic, doesn’t it?), I am disgusted by the fact that the GOP is every bit as guilty of adhering to these principles as the democrats. Trans-nationalism means giving up our sovereignty. For anyone to doubt this is already taking place is to deny reality. Did you notice that the WORLD Health Organization began collecting and reporting on the H1N1 virus to the media? Do we not have a CDC? Is this not their responsibility, rather than a UN organization? Meanwhile, Americans – for the most part not quite as alert or intelligent as my pet Shitzu, skip merrily along down the path of the yellow brick road.
//People think that Øbama is “doing the best he can.//
The first job I had after the Army was in a factory. The foreman was a prick. But one thing that he said to me once, resonated with me.
He was urging me to move faster, one day. I told him I was doing the best I could. He replied, "Sometimes our best isn;t good enough for the job we do".
So when I hear someone say that Obama is doing the best he can, I either think or in some cases say: Sometimes his best is not good enough, for the job he has to do.
//Did you notice that the WORLD Health Organization began collecting and reporting on the H1N1 virus to the media? //
Nothing new there, my friend.
They've been trying to cram the WHO down our throats for years now. In my estimation, the WHO has blown this whole damned thing out of proportion, so they can look relevant.
Post a Comment