From The Road To Serfdom, Chapter Two: The Great Utopia

To the great apostles of political freedom, the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised, however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice for all of us, although for some very much more than for others. Before man could truly be free, the "despotism of physical want" had to be broken, the "restraints of the economic system" relaxed.

Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. Yet, although the promises of this new freedom were often coupled with irresponsible promises of a great increase in material wealth in a socialist society, it was not from such an absolute conquest of the niggardliness of nature that economic freedom was expected. What the promise really amounted to was that the great existing disparities in the range of choice of different people were to disappear. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth. But the new name gave the socialists another word in common with the liberals, and they exploited it to the full. And, although the word was used in a different sense by the two groups, few people noticed this and still fewer asked themselves whether the two kinds of freedom could really be combined.

F.A. Hayek, writing during World War II:

We have progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past. Although we had been warned by some of the greatest political thinkers of the nineteenth century, by Tocqueville and Lord Acton, that socialism means slavery, we have steadily moved in the direction of socialism. And now that we have seen a new form of slavery arise before our eyes, we have so completely forgotten the warning that is scarcely occurs to us that the two things may be connected.

The Road to Serfdom, Chapter One: The Abandoned Road

Treacher:

As if it's somehow relevant that Obama revealed to the whole world that he's a socialist. Who cares that he looked one of his inferiors in the eye and told the peasant he doesn't deserve the money he earns?

Hell and Yeah. It's about time McCain started punching hard on this one:



Via hot air.

More on the close connection between the Dems and the financial meltdown from the UK Independent:

Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.

Neither of these two institutions is blameless – far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels – well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.

It's all true, of course, but I sort of wish he'd found a different way to describe Barney Frank.

[shudder]

Sarah Palin did very well last night, I think that much is clear. The Wall Street Journal has a fine editorial noting this fact, and also pointing out where McCain and Palin can improve their message when it comes to the financial crisis:

Maybe John McCain should fire the advisers who won't let Sarah Palin do more interviews. The Alaska Governor has faced two major campaign challenges -- her acceptance speech and last night's debate -- and each time she's shown herself worthy of the national stage. Let Mrs. Palin be herself, and then when she makes a mistake, as every candidate does, it won't be treated like some epic judgment on her fitness to be Vice President...

...Mr. Biden had his strongest moments on the economy, trying to link Mr. McCain to the current financial problems and "deregulation." On this point, neither Mrs. Palin nor Mr. McCain have yet offered Americans an adequate response. It isn't enough to denounce "greed and corruption" on Wall Street, as Mrs. Palin did every few minutes. If that's the problem, voters will elect the Democrats as more practiced class warriors.

On the second point: I think this isn't so much a Palin problem as it is one of McCain reacting to the crisis with populism rather than an appeal to the truth of the situation. Hopefully that changes soon.

Oh, and he's a serial resumé puffer too:



It's about time somebody started tying this hump directly to the crisis he and his party helped to create and - oh by the way - did nothing to avoid.

Vid via HotAir

A major part of the problem that we face in mortgage and credit markets today stems from Clinton-era changes in financial oversight that allowed the expansion of credit to individuals who otherwise would have been too much of a risk to qualify. Out of that springs the subprime crisis, Fannie and Freddie, and the major tightening of credit markets that we're seeing now. How does Joe Biden propose to solve the problem that he had a hand in creating?

For a crisis essentially created out of government interference, Biden offers nothing more than a “hair of the dog” solution. He wants bankruptcy laws changed to force lenders to offer lower terms to people with higher risk, which is exactly what created this crisis in the first place. He claims to side with the man in the street against the shareholders, but his solution would create more crises like we face now, not less.

Hope and change, indeed. Let's double down on that bad bet! That's the ticket. Pay no attention to the folks advising the campaign on economics. Nothing to see there...

Jamie Gorelick - the woman with the reverse Midas touch."

Via the Pub

More: Again, a Republican scandal. Nothing to do with Obama. Nothing whatsoever.

Sarah Palin was accused of making her first big gaffe on the campaign trail yesterday when she said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had gotten "too big and too expensive." The Huffington Post jumped all over this, arguing that no taxpayer money has been spent to bail out the businesses to date. But isn't a $200 billion blank check... big and expensive?

The Palin comment is well within the margin of error on the campaign trail. There is no "gaffe" here. Congress earlier this summer -- in the housing bill that both John McCain and Barack Obama supported but didn't bother to vote on -- gave Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. a blank check* to invest in Fannie or Freddie. It OKd a big bailout. Perhaps in your book a blank check freshly signed by Congress is not "too expensive." Perhaps you trust the government not to spend a blank check. Perhaps pigs have wings. Palin was right: The very existence of a blank check means that Fannie and Freddie are too expensive to taxpayers.

*In a comforting bedtime story that several members of Congress actually believed, Paulson said the blank check was so big and powerful (a bazooka of cash!) he would never have to use it. By the time Palin spoke, it was clear that Paulson's attempt at "verbal intervention" had failed and that real taxpayer money will be spent to prop up Fannie and Freddie. No one knows how much, but the Treasury has signed contracts to invest up to $100 billion in each company. Oh, and loan them money too. Oh, and buy their mortgage-backed securities. Do you really want to argue that she made a mistake by saying the two companies are "too big and too expensive to the taxpayers"?

Point: Palin.

The Chicago Way goes nationwide:

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people ‘cling’ to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”

Good for McCain. Cram it straight down Obama's throat.

Ace:

We should be grateful that Chuck Schumer has at least grasped the interrelation of supply and demand. Now we just need explain to him the notion of fungibility, that a barrel of American oil is precisely the equivalent of Saudi oil as far as supply goes, and we'll be in like Flynn.

Barack Obama makes no sense on economics:

The big television networks take a lot of abuse for their supposed left-wing slant, but for a few moments in yesterday’s presidential debate on ABC News, anchorman Charles Gibson sounded like a charter member of the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform. It came when Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. “But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent,” Mr. Gibson said. “And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”

Why, Robert Bartley couldn’t have put it better himself. Mr. Obama was totally flummoxed, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve. The Democrat of Illinois spoke of the need to “finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it,” and of the need to “invest in our infrastructure” and in “our schools.”

Mr. Gibson, to his credit, wouldn’t let the point go. “But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up,” he replied to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama replied by changing the subject, to “a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to.”

So Obama is willing to raise a tax in a manner that will force the treasury to forego revenue, all for... what?

"...what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair."

The American Thinker rips this idiocy apart:

...with that statement, Obama betrayed first his intellectual dishonesty, then his economic idiocy. The candidate is well aware that his hypothetical hedge fund manager pays a much higher rate on wages than does his supposed secretary. And that they both pay the same rate on capital gains - yes Senator, millions of Americans of varying income, including secretaries, own stock.

Accepting the low tax / higher revenue premise by virtue of his silence, he argued that his own Marxist measure of "fairness" somehow trumps fiscal efficacy.

In the interests of "fairness," Barack Obama would raise taxes in a manner that would reduce revenue to the treasury. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Tell me again why anyone is taking this guy seriously? Oh yeah, it's the hope and change.

Riiiiight.

The whole post is great, but Stephen Bainbridge really nails this paragraph:

When I think about Obama, I am reminded of Richard Epstein’s observation that in order to remain politically viable modern socialists no longer advocate direct government ownership of production. Instead, modern socialism operates on two different levels: “At a personal level, it speaks to the alienation of the individual, stressing the need for caring and sharing and the politics of meaning. At a regulatory level, it seeks to identify specific sectors in which there is a market failure and then to subject them to various forms of government regulation.” Sounds a lot like Obama’s stump speech to me.

Towers and Tarmacs:

I'm sure we'll hear more in the coming days, but I'm not the only one wondering how the new behemoth carrier will be able to reach their synergy goals by keeping all 7 U.S. hubs up and running. Watch this space because I'm going to make myself a strong pot of coffee and fix a bowl of popcorn to watch this show.