my comments are below the video.
for anyone who listened to cramer in the past, his candid 2006 comments should come as no surprise. the guy ran a hedge fund managing billions of dollars for institutions, pensions, and the very wealthy. he did not (and should not) serve the average investor.
stewart presents himself as a man of the people, yet it concerns me how he's directing his anger; at a television channel. a freaking television channel. perhaps more disturbing than stewarts misplaced anger is that people actually took cramer seriously. he's obviously intelligent and in the right arrangement his advice could be of value, but on his television program "Mad Money" he is an entertainer, nothing more. stewart knows as much as anyone what drives television programming; advertising. networks make money from advertisers, the more outrageous cramer acts (or anyone else for that matter), the more people who will watch. if more people watch, cnbc (or any other network) can charge more for advertising, plain and simple. there is nothing in the formula about being truthful or honest or on the side of the public; those are just fringe benefits if they happen to work out.
have we as a nation lost our ability to accept responsibility for our own destiny? i believe the american form of government crafted over 200 years ago was designed to give us just that, the opportunity to forge our own way, to work to improve our station, or not. somewhere along the journey we lost our direction, changed our course and asked a government to take care of us; an ironic twist of serve the servants. perhaps we've lost the skills necessary to navigate life without regulation and oversite, dependent on beauracracy to protect us from ourselves.
next time you hear of a financial scandle ask yourself, "how could the victims have protected themselves"? if the only answer you come up with is government regulation.....we might be too far gone.
-joe
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
a healthy skepticism
trust. dictionary.com defines trust as the "reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence".
should we trust our government? if you examine and study the intentions of our nation's founding fathers i believe you will find they encouraged the opposite. why? perhaps because trust relaxes our natural defense mechanisms. if you trust someone or something there is no reason to be defensive or question their motives; trust implies confidence. to follow someone trust is essential, in military applications it's vital, in government it is devastating.
in his final speech as the president of the united states, dwight eisenhower stated "we should take nothing for granted. only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together". (emphasis mine) why would he take the occasion of his farewell address to implore the citizenry of our country in such a way? could it be that he foresaw the disastrous effects of misplaced trust in government? we must remain vigilant, educate ourselves, and hold elected officials accountable, apathy has led to our present state of affairs.
we as americans should mistrust anything coming from government, not as an act of civil disobedience but as patriots. by maintaining a healthy skepticism we are able to combat the special interests and career politicians who have absconded with our democracy. our constitution vests the power with us, the citizens of the united states and we have abdicated our responsibility and authority to the very government designed to serve us. rage against the machine said it best "you've gotta take the power back".
-joe
should we trust our government? if you examine and study the intentions of our nation's founding fathers i believe you will find they encouraged the opposite. why? perhaps because trust relaxes our natural defense mechanisms. if you trust someone or something there is no reason to be defensive or question their motives; trust implies confidence. to follow someone trust is essential, in military applications it's vital, in government it is devastating.
in his final speech as the president of the united states, dwight eisenhower stated "we should take nothing for granted. only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together". (emphasis mine) why would he take the occasion of his farewell address to implore the citizenry of our country in such a way? could it be that he foresaw the disastrous effects of misplaced trust in government? we must remain vigilant, educate ourselves, and hold elected officials accountable, apathy has led to our present state of affairs.
we as americans should mistrust anything coming from government, not as an act of civil disobedience but as patriots. by maintaining a healthy skepticism we are able to combat the special interests and career politicians who have absconded with our democracy. our constitution vests the power with us, the citizens of the united states and we have abdicated our responsibility and authority to the very government designed to serve us. rage against the machine said it best "you've gotta take the power back".
-joe
Sunday, March 8, 2009
the other side of the coin...
what could be wrong with a government stimulus designed to employ people, build infrastructure, and get the economy out of a recession? well just as there are two sides to a coin, there is also a flip side to any money a government proposes to spend, that's what. clearly for those in a direct line to receive the stimulus money there's an immediate benefit. with the income they're able to make purchases and support themselves, which in turn will benefit those businesses and people they patronize. so far so good, more jobs and people consuming again, where's the trade off?
in order to understand the ill effects of government stimulation we need to recall the source of the government's ability to stimulate: taxes. taxes imposed on other citizens and businesses who's income and purchasing power are proportionally reduced. in the best of cases the net effect would be zero, what is taken from one in the form of taxes, is given to another as a "stimulus". no net increase takes place, we are simply removing it from Peter in order to pay Paul. of course we aren't in the best of cases, and 100% of the levied taxes do not pass directly to the "stimulants", rather the government itself takes a piece in order to provide for it's own expenses. real money actually leaves the economic system!
worse yet is what is presently being done: taxes are not being increased to pay for the stimulus. the money is coming from the printing press and ultimately debt issued by the government. those saddled with the burden of paying our debt will be our children and our children's, children. it's like giving money to Paul and expecting Peter's kids and grand kids to pay it back! we are making it a little easier on ourselves and sticking our posterity with the bill.
so why do it? the simple answer is it's easier to ignore the ramifications of our present actions than to suck it up and deal with the problem now. politicians aren't elected when they talk about difficult decisions, as a nation we elect legislators who promise to give us something for nothing!
like most things that sound too good to be true, the governments ability to "fix" an economic recession is dubious. even if it worked (which it doesn't) the citizenry payed the bill not the suits in washington.
i'll finish with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy"
-joe
in order to understand the ill effects of government stimulation we need to recall the source of the government's ability to stimulate: taxes. taxes imposed on other citizens and businesses who's income and purchasing power are proportionally reduced. in the best of cases the net effect would be zero, what is taken from one in the form of taxes, is given to another as a "stimulus". no net increase takes place, we are simply removing it from Peter in order to pay Paul. of course we aren't in the best of cases, and 100% of the levied taxes do not pass directly to the "stimulants", rather the government itself takes a piece in order to provide for it's own expenses. real money actually leaves the economic system!
worse yet is what is presently being done: taxes are not being increased to pay for the stimulus. the money is coming from the printing press and ultimately debt issued by the government. those saddled with the burden of paying our debt will be our children and our children's, children. it's like giving money to Paul and expecting Peter's kids and grand kids to pay it back! we are making it a little easier on ourselves and sticking our posterity with the bill.
so why do it? the simple answer is it's easier to ignore the ramifications of our present actions than to suck it up and deal with the problem now. politicians aren't elected when they talk about difficult decisions, as a nation we elect legislators who promise to give us something for nothing!
like most things that sound too good to be true, the governments ability to "fix" an economic recession is dubious. even if it worked (which it doesn't) the citizenry payed the bill not the suits in washington.
i'll finish with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy"
-joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
