Why The Federal Reserve Is Immoral

Tim over at The Mess That Greenspan Made writes about why the Fed is immoral and I can hardly improve on it. You should read the whole thing. Once you’re done with that, read about why our cri­sis will deepen even fur­ther instead of get­ting bet­ter over at Cafe Amer­i­cain. I believed when I first saw Obama that as Pres­i­dent that he reminded me of JFK in that he was highly inex­pe­ri­enced and seemed to be run­ning around lis­ten­ing to a lot of sup­pos­edly smart peo­ple instead of mak­ing deci­sions on his own. This level of inex­pe­ri­ence got us into the Viet­nam War with JFK and it’s liable to do some­thing sim­i­lar again with Obama though I would haz­ard a guess that the war will be one fought on inter­nal grounds in the finance indus­try and government.

When you lack expe­ri­ence to make hard deci­sions, you will almost always make the wrong ones. We are see­ing this con­tin­u­ally with this admin­is­tra­tion and while I do believe that he is well-spoken and well-meaning, I don’t believe he is capa­ble of the job we have given him. It is likely to only get worse as time goes on. There is lit­tle sup­port for the stock price surge we have been see­ing since March and the U.S. dol­lar is under fairly heavy pres­sure. We are likely to see a a big fall in both start­ing some­time in Sep­tem­ber just about the time that the Amer­i­can pub­lic decides it is OK to start putting money back into the mar­ket. The result will be both obvi­ous and terrible.

6 Comments

  • um, wow. so then, the expe­ri­ence of lead­er­ship in the great state of texas some­how absolves bush of respon­si­bil­ity for the iraq and afghanistan con­flicts, a dis­as­trous fis­cal pol­icy based on a legacy of fool­hardy neo­con­ser­v­a­tive deficit the­ory and a series of (admit­tedly debat­able) maneu­vers to under­mine the offi­cial over­sight guar­an­teed to con­gress and the supreme court?
    i’m not say­ing obama’s doing a good job at all (he’s not), but clearly the last 8 years have shown that expe­ri­ence in mak­ing the hard deci­sions counts for jack. “[while] he is well-spoken and well-meaning, I don’t believe he is capa­ble of the job we have given him” describes our for­mer pres­i­dent about per­fectly. except for the “well-spoken” part.

  • Scotch Drinker wrote:

    Nope but then if I spent my time writ­ing about how much pre­vi­ous pres­i­dents sucked, that’s pretty much all I’d write about. Which might be an improve­ment, who knows.

    My feel­ing on the Bush pres­i­dency is that his errors weren’t so much based on inex­pe­ri­ence as they were his slightly ide­al­ized belief in the right­ness and power of Amer­ica which was likely co-opted by lots of peo­ple with influ­ence. Does that make him any less respon­si­ble? No. But it may give us a dif­fer­ent insight into why our gov­ern­ment did what it did. Also, if you’re going to equate Iraq with Afghanistan, I think you’re going to be swim­ming pretty hard upstream.

    With Obama, I don’t see any other expla­na­tion for the hap­haz­ard way he is approach­ing things. They have had it very easy for a lit­tle while but things are going to get harder. I feel like his inex­pe­ri­ence in man­ag­ing any­thing larger than a Sen­ate cam­paign is caus­ing him to rely on the so-called smart peo­ple around him and they don’t seem to have a clue what they are doing much like many of the so-called smart men around Kennedy.

    The par­al­lels with Kennedy and Obama are strik­ing in my mind. Kennedy was just begin­ning to find his voice, in par­tic­u­lar as it relates to Viet­nam in the months before he was killed. That extremely unfor­tu­nate event then resulted in a very inse­cure LBJ, a slick Sen­a­tor who lucked into the VP job (ring any bells?) becom­ing Pres­i­dent and tak­ing us into Viet­nam. I don’t think some­thing so dra­matic has to hap­pen here because I’m not sure Obama will ever find his own voice. He strikes me as a politi­cian through and through and some­one who is likely to be swayed by opin­ions around him instead of mak­ing his own deci­sions. Just my feel­ings from 10K feet.

    I do that Obama can find his own voice and that it is one of rea­son and intel­lect and not party and racial pol­i­tics. So far, there has been lit­tle evi­dence that that will happen.

  • thank you for tak­ing that as it should have been said, rather than how i said it — i appre­ci­ate your will­ing­ness to over­look my propen­sity for being an a-hole (a trait which does not exhibit itself solely on your blog — which fact is no com­fort to me, but may at least make you feel better!).

    i think you and i are very much on the same page re: obama and his ‘politician-ness’, and i couldn’t agree more that he reminds me so greatly of kennedy (let us not for­get that kennedy was our first catholic pres­i­dent, which was not too far removed from being black for a politi­cian at that time). i think that’s a highly astute par­al­lel you draw, in fact.

    the thing that i can­not get past is the lam­bast­ing obama is still tak­ing for his lack of expe­ri­ence. there is a will­ing­ness to applaud, for­give or out­right ignore bush’s reliance on those who might have taken advan­tage of his rosy view of amer­ica and its place in the world in spite of his hav­ing the very expe­ri­ence of which the lack is given blame for obama doing the same.

    i don’t think i could have writ­ten a more con­fus­ing sen­tence. if any­one needs a map to make it through that syn­tac­ti­cal maze i’m afraid i may not be able to help.

    the beau­ti­ful, hor­ri­ble thing is that respon­si­bil­ity does not care about expe­ri­ence or pol­i­tics. in the end, if you say you’re the man, you’re the man, and every pres­i­dent must answer for his mis­takes whether they were based on advice or his gut.

    except rea­gan. but that’s a dif­fer­ent argu­ment. ;-)

  • btw, doo­fus that i am, i for­got to give props to the iacono arti­cle. great piece of work, that.

  • Hi, I just hap­pened upon your blog post look­ing for clo­jure stuff. I’m an Obama sup­porter and I wanted to respond to your post.

    You seem to be judg­ing JFK’s admin­is­tra­tion as a fail­ure based on one major for­eign pol­icy issue. You also seem to be judg­ing Obama’s admin­is­tra­tion as a fail­ure based on an eco­nomic dis­as­ter his admin­is­tra­tion inher­ited and a solu­tion that hasn’t played out yet. I com­pletely dis­agree with these judgments.

    Both pres­i­dents came to office fac­ing great chal­lenges. Obama’s chal­lenges (the econ­omy, 2 wars, health care) were inher­ited by his admin­is­tra­tion. JFK faced a nuclear stand­off with the Soviet Union, the spread of Com­mu­nism in Asia, and the civil rights movement.

    JFK was a good pres­i­dent. I have high hopes for Obama. I think his pres­i­dency will be as suc­cess­ful as JFK’s and I think our coun­try will be bet­ter of for it.

    Any­way… fun to stum­ble upon some polit­i­cal debate in the midst of cod­ing. Thanks.

  • Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

    Sure Obama inher­ited a mess, and I’m not happy with his pre­de­ces­sor either, but he’s doing the very oppo­site of fix­ing things.

Leave a Reply

Your email is never shared.Required fields are marked *