Book Review: Glenn Beck’s “Broke”

by Elusive Wapiti on August 29, 2011

The Book: Glenn Beck’s Broke

The Gist: This book makes the case for the American nation’s current state of moral, spiritual, and financial poverty, and suggests ways to “restore trust, truth, and treasure”. It starts with the pre-revolutionary war period and chronicles the attitude of the Founders and their contemporaries toward frugality, thrift, debt, and hard work. This book accentuates its narrative through the quotes of the individuals under discussion, and a trio of quotes from the late eighteenth century well characterizes the Founders’ zeitgeist as it pertains to money and governance. The first quote is from legendary classical economist Adam Smith:

Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of affluence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart the natural course are unnatural and, to support themselves, are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical

These next two quotes well characterize the Founders’ attitude toward debt in particular, that is, if Jefferson’s attempt at having a balanced-budget amendment weaved into the Bill of Rights wasn’t signal enough:

[debt is] an ingenious substitute for the chain and whip of the slave driver – Ambrose Bierce

Moreover, after the United States acquired a large amount of debt as a consequence of the Revolutionary War; Andrew Jackson, noting that debt was a “national curse” that destroyed individual liberty in favor of the monied and powerful elites, had this to say about the yoke the country had placed around its neck:

My vow shall be to pay the national debt, to prevent a monied aristocracy from growing up around our administration that must bend to its views, and ultimately destroy the liberty of our country

This hostility to debt remained through the country’s early history, as presidents from Jackson onward sought to drive our debt down to zero. However, at the close of the nineteenth century, the elites’ attitude toward debt changed with the advent of the economic theories of Lord Keynes and debt-driven growth. These economic theories were music to the ears of a new crop of intellectuals who broke with the traditions of Classical Liberalism and favored more “State” when considering the rights of man vis-a-vis the State. Although this shift in America started during the Wilson administration, with his social gospel and big spending, big government, big welfare agenda, it was further incubated by Hoover and fully implemented under FDR. Indeed, the governing class’ attitudes toward the role of government as a service provider rather than a mere guarantor of natural rights is best characterized by FDR’s so-called “Second Bill of Rights“. But the Great Depression wasn’t enough to pressure Americans to fully accept the newly muscular State; it would take a total war for that. Enter WWII, which offered Progressives their big chance to redraw the American citizens’ relationship to his government, to turn the responsibility society into the entitlement society. Beck writes:

Before the New Deal, most Americans were strongly suspicious of federal power. The grand tradition of self-reliance, free enterprise, local control, and a strong civil society voluntarily helping neighbors in need has persisted throughout American history. While the New Deal presented a more activist government, it was WWII that fundamentally altered the relationship between the American people and their government. In order to defeat Germany and Japan, federal power expanded like never before. Washington decided what goods industry would produce, and when it would produce it. The federal government even provided Americans with ration books specifying how much meat, gasoline, sugar, and other items they could purchase. It was a scary combination, but big business and government collaborated to run the economy for the sake of the war. After the war, some feared another depression. Instead, the American economy continued to prosper. In what journalist Robert Samuelson called the “cult of Affluence”, the American people came to take economic prosperity for granted

Fast-forwarding to the 60s and the 70s, Beck continues this thread of a debt-driven expansion of the State at the expense of individual liberty. His narrative now centers on Progressive presidents LBJ and Nixon; the former’s Great Society merely extended FDR’s New Deal, while the latter president completed LBJ’s reforms while cementing the deal by taking the USA off of the gold standard for good.

Beck writes how debt continued to soar under presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton as the elected leadership lied, broke campaign promises, or just plain succumbed to the culture of Washington corruption. Party affiliation did not seem to matter when it came to expanding the role of government and engaging in a spending spree; in fact, by most measures, Republican administrations expanded the government further and spent more profligately than did Democrat ones, particularly during the term of “compassionate conservative” GW Bush. As a result, America ran deficits in 44 of the last 50 years, and in 9 of the last 10. Total federal spending rocketed 242% in the last 40 years, while household income only climbed 29%, as Congress and the executive branch engaged in accounting trickery (“on budget”, “off budget”, and deceptively titled “pay go“) and brinksmanship and pork barrel spending (“emergency omnibus spending bills”) in their desperate attempts to keep the entitlement society running. Yet, as Beck writes, this debt-fuelled expansion cannot go on forever, if for no other reason than interest payments on the debt will triple (as a share of the budget) and quadruple (in absolute 2010 dollars) between now and 2020, choking off discretionary spending as a proportion of the budget.

After having told the sad tale of the squandering of America’s treasure and abuse of the American public’s trust on the part of her administrators, the last third of Beck’s book lays out a plan of sorts to set America back on the path. Consisting of seven parts, Beck suggests we:

1) Return the government to the Constitutional Republic it was established to be, and re-align the concept of civil rights with the natural rights of man versus the rights government grants men

2) Return to equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome

3) Restore the role of religion in American society, particularly where religions exhort us to care for each other, rather than task government to accomplish this for us

4) Decentralize government power away from Washington, as designed by the Constitution. This will save money, enhance freedom, permit the “laboratory of democracy to function once again”, and make difficult the re-distribution of wealth at the Federal level

5) Use these times of emergency and crisis to pass balanced-budget, term limits, and line-item veto amendments, as well as returning “impoundment authority” to the executive

6) Just start cutting, starting with DoE and DoEd, but also going after DoD as well, as not only is the national debt a national security issue, but a vulnerability that our adversaries seek to exploit:

We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah – Osama bin Laden

7) Replace the present redistributive and special-interest loophole-laden tax code with a flat tax.

Overall, this is one of Beck’s better books, particularly in his description of how America has transformed from a society of self-reliance to one of entitlement. Recommended reading.


About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }

ck August 29, 2011 at 10:46

A flat tax is still a form slavery. It still sets the precident that government can and will confiscate your property as it see’s fit to do so. A sales tax removes such power from the goverment. Although still a tax it at least does not require an army of armed agents forcing compliance and it is the most fair “invisible” direct tax there is. FEDGOV should live on no more than 4 percent. Leaves the rest to local control, if New York wants socialism and Texas wants liberty each state can cater accordingly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Firepower August 29, 2011 at 11:05

I thought it was a loss, a retreat, when Beck handed in his cable news program.

However, his style and attention to detail are much better arrayed in book form.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10
TFH August 29, 2011 at 11:20

But Beck is still someone who has not connected the dots on feminism. If I recall correctly, he ‘blames himself’ for his divorce.

Feminism and debt are closely corelated, given that 70-80% of all government spending is a transfer form men to women….

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 4
Firepower August 29, 2011 at 11:37

There are those who would say “70-80% of all government spending is a transfer from taxpayers to government.”

There are those who would say “70-80% of all government spending is a transfer from whites to minos.”

Each, could be correctly stated.

As it is, this book is focused on broader issues, not the specific focus of this site. If you believe your primary threat comes from the Congressional Feminist Caucus instead of the Congressional Black Caucus or Open Borders/La Raza followers, so be it.

I choose to believe that our threat is ALL of these -and more. Not one.

Just because you identify “only” in 90% of a leader’s tenets is no reason to throw the baby out
with the bath water

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 18
Kyo August 29, 2011 at 11:46

It looks like those annual spending increases are in constant dollars and have been adjusted for inflation.

While such figures are probably more instructive than the actual figures, they still push the debasement of the dollar — one of the government’s favorite tools used in taking on more debt at public expense — to the background.

Ideally there would be a second graph using unadjusted dollars, or a second bar for each president showing the average annual inflation rate during his term of office. I’m betting that the last president to avoid inflation (if there is one) was the same Eisenhower who avoided increasing government spending.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Jay August 29, 2011 at 11:54

Beck is a joke. . .there is no nice way to say it. While there are quality writings on this website, shilling for Beck (a man who presenting facts is an utter waste of time) is simply laughable and cannot be taken seriously.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 32 Thumb down 40
Nullpointer August 29, 2011 at 11:58

Actually agree with Beck on most of what he says, even if he is occasionally misinformed or is led to the wrong conclusions by his ideologies.

I disagree on natural rights though– there are no things such as natural rights. Rights are a human construct for the purpose of having a “good” society.

Have you seen the UN declaration of human rights? None of those exists without government. Your property is only yours insomuch as you can defend it. Nasty, brutish, and short indeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7
Firepower August 29, 2011 at 12:02

Jay …

Beck (a man who presenting facts is an utter waste of time) is simply laughable and cannot be taken seriously.

You dispute the plethora of facts listed in the article and in chart form?

Present counter evidence with sources to match Beck’s.
Instead of ad hominem attacks.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 35 Thumb down 21
keyster August 29, 2011 at 12:20

Glenn Beck is f*cking nuts!” a liberal friend of mine exclaims.
“Have you ever seen his show or read any of his books?”
“No, I don’t have to. Jon Stewart hates him though!”

These “traditionalists” would have us harken back to the days when old white guys pulled all the strings and set up a government based on an understanding of man’s intrinsic nature. “Progressives” want us to “progress” towards a new world order of peace, love and harmony for all. “It’s not fair that there’s rich and poor in the world, (as long as I get to stay one of the rich ones).”

Bush lowered taxes like a Republican, but then spent like a Democrat, which in turn gave Obama “permission” to spend like a socialist (a socialist well short on tax revenue). The two sides keep wavering from their base to capture the all elusive middle, the independent, the undecided and the unsure; otherwise known as the deciding vote in the next election.

Who’s really running the country right now?
Corporate America and powerful special interest groups.
We the citizens are of little consequence.
It’s all a grand charade to keep us entertained and occupied while they keep skimming from our wallets, hoping we won’t notice and that they’ll leave behind a legacy some greatness or importance through time.

Oh to be a fly in the room when the veteran Senator or Congressman gives the new Tea Party guy the “what for”, on how to “behave” properly (or be corrupt without being TOO corrupt).

If anyone wonders why and how Ron Paul gets away with what he says and does, you need to understand his district. It has the largest nuclear plant in the state of Texas. He needs no favors from anyone for anything at anytime. Now if you represent a district that depends on federal dollars, defense contracts, new bridges, etc. you’re gonna have to compromise if not cave completely.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4
Turbo the Drycleaner August 29, 2011 at 12:54

Beck can be pretty out there on his show, but Ive always got the impression that was to peacock and gain more viewers. In interviews and in his books, he comes across as a fairly intelligent and rational person, even if you cant agree with what he is saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Rocco August 29, 2011 at 13:16

@ Keyster

What do you mean? Women are the majority, women rule the country…oh yeah…never mind.

Looks like a new guy Alan Krueger is in charge of job creation for Obama:

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/29/306641/alan-krueger-is-the-guy-you-call-when-youve-given-up-on-reducing-unemployment-by-increasing-demand/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Rocco August 29, 2011 at 13:53

OT

Interesting take on a new movie “The Help” about racism in the south in 1960′s written by a white woman.

Talking about the standard Hollywood formula:

“With one possible exception, the white women are remarkably unlikable, and not just because of their racism. Like the housewives portrayed in reality television shows, the housewives of Jackson treat each other, their parents and their husbands with total callousness.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/dangerous-white-stereotypes.html?hp

A culture shift is occuring that the feminists will not be able to control because it’s real.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Anti Idiocy August 29, 2011 at 14:12

OT. CNN had a somewhat (emphasis on “somewhat”) decent article on the radfem’s lynch mob attitude toward Dominique Strauss Kahn and his, from what I can tell, false rape case. If the mood strikes, you can jump into the discussion to let people know how you feel about feminism. Quite a few have posted statements against the hate movement. In fact, few are openly standing up for feminism. What a change from just a few years ago!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/29/dsk.women.lucy.wadham/index.html?&hpt=hp_c2

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Rocco August 29, 2011 at 14:23

OT

Here we have a NYT’s, self described “feminist”, writer properly calling what went on with the DSK case and the way all men are treated today an:

“Inquisition”

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/29/dsk.women.lucy.wadham/index.html?&hpt=hp_c2

I agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Anonymous August 29, 2011 at 14:41

Paul Nathanson and Cathy Young
Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2010).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anti Idiocy August 29, 2011 at 14:48

Yikes. The discussion after that CNN article is a joy to read. MANY men are speaking out against the deranged hate movement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Rocco August 29, 2011 at 15:56

@ AI

Are those comments on the CNN site? I can’t find them, doh!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anti Idiocy August 29, 2011 at 16:01

Yes they are, Rocco. Just scroll about half-way down the page. To see all the comments, you’ll have to click on “view all comments”. Not all the comments are MRA type statements, but a lot are. Feminism has clearly started its swan song.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
TFH August 29, 2011 at 16:02

keyster,

Bush lowered taxes like a Republican, but then spent like a Democrat, which in turn gave Obama “permission” to spend like a socialist (a socialist well short on tax revenue).

This is it right there.

His tax cuts increased revenue by 30% (a huge success of supply side economics), but then he went on to increase spending by 60%.

He could have cemented Republican rule for a generation by generating even a small surplus, which is a very politically powerful event. Clinton is considered ‘great’ mostly on the back of having a small budget surplus for just one of his 8 years, that too because of skyrocketing revenue from dot-com bubble capital gains.

The approval rating of Presidents rises and falls with the level of the the deficit/surplus. This is the single biggest determinant of Presidential approval outside of shock events like 9/11.

At this point, the downgrade of US debt by one tick by S&P is terrible news for feminism. Not today, but soon. This is because interest rates rise exponentially with each downgrade, and the massive state that feminists depend on gets harder and harder to finance.

And all the divorced women who are glad that they ‘got the house’ will soon find that they got an asset that is in negative equity, due to rising interest rates.

If you really want to measure the rate at which feminism implodes on itself, then cheer on further debt downgrades for the US. That is bad for the country, but it hurts the ‘parasite’ parts of the US far more than the productive parts. Feminism and the welfare state in particular, will not survive if there are two more notches of downgrades.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
TFH August 29, 2011 at 16:09

Anti-Idiocy,

Yikes. The discussion after that CNN article is a joy to read. MANY men are speaking out against the deranged hate movement.

If this excites you, then channel that energy into posting flyers at strategic locations. The URLs @ Urinals campaign outlines how to do this to maximum effect.

Just an hour of your time can educate hundreds of men.

Do it!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
beta_plus August 29, 2011 at 16:13

$14.3 Trillion in debt. The price of allowing women to vote.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
Rebel August 29, 2011 at 16:36

“Feminism and the welfare state in particular, will not survive if there are two more notches of downgrades.”

Nothing comes free.

Men’s freedom may come at the cost of general poverty. The collapse of the government is our only hope. I think that pretty much everybody sees it now.

Total collapse should be greeted with gratitude.

The forces that are going to come down are staggering. Fasten your safety belt.

And learn survivalism.

The enemy’s time has almost elapsed: our turn comes next.

Patience..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
TFH August 29, 2011 at 16:57

Men’s freedom may come at the cost of general poverty.

But poverty for who? A man today earning $100K but who gets to keep just $25K of that after alimony and CS, would be better off just working part time for $25K and keeping all of it…

A debt downgrade and fiscal collapse will hurt those most dependent on government.

And hurt the least those who are net payers into government.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Mr. Stricter August 29, 2011 at 18:35

Feminism has had its negative consequences on society but its not the source of our troubles. That source is the 2fer of Automation and Neo-Liberalism mixed with a smidgen of Cultural Marxism.

Beck rightly notes all the fiscal issues we are facing but his solutions are charitably ridiculous as they are derived from several false premises to whit ..

#1 Capital will do the right thing for society. Thats flat out wrong as the situation we are in proves. Capital is basically harnessed psychopathy, useful but you have to constantly watch it and make it do the right things for all.

#2 That we even could roll back to a small state. Well I wish. Modern technology is too dangerous and without a 24-7 regulatory hammer some cost cutting ninny will ruin everything in his greed.

#3 The we have divinely ordained rights at all. Well no, to borrow a phrase its a Noggin Goblin, and illusion and utter rubbish. Real natural law is simple “power is truth” The goal of the original Constitution aside from really being only applicable to a few people is to limit conflict by limiting the State. Thats still valuable but with 300+ million people an unstable state on our border and rampant social disconnect, we need a bigger state.

#4 That people owe “good behavior” well no they don’t. People will behave well when they are plugged into a system that works for them. Its pretty clear with all the drug use, crime and other issues, many people are not. Some of the traditional values espoused are solid and we need them badly but we are simply as much as I like it going to replace modern society with some kind of Neo-Trad revival, at least not and have any nice things. We need to find a way to adapt to the reality of automation and feminism and all that. Now some of the agenda is winnable but we will not now or ever be able to way restore American 1950 or whatever

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
Jean Valjean August 29, 2011 at 19:50

I find talk about “founding fathers” to be disingenuous because they are often selective about the quotes they wish to use.

On of the more egregious is to ignore the words of G. Washington who said that a standing military is a threat to liberty. Currently our standing military costs us a fortune and we really don’t need to be bullying every nation in the world with it. Sadly, none of these conservatives or even Tea Party types are willing to advocate the kind of cuts to make their post-revolution era revival a possibility.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Norm August 29, 2011 at 20:13

Glenn Beck seems to follow what Alex Jones says and parrots it to his adjenda. Micheal Savage calls him Glenn Schmeck.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
E August 29, 2011 at 22:26

TFH says:

Feminism and debt are closely corelated, given that 70-80% of all government spending is a transfer form men to women….

An argument that the small government crowd often state is that deficits which leads to inflation punishes savers because it diminishes the value of their savings.
Well that is true.
but…
It is also true women do a piss poor job of saving money so that’s not really an issue for them.
The evidence?
Do a search for the word “inflation” at http://www.NOW.org

and you’ll notice ALL 10 search results on the first page leads to op-ed articles that mention “inflation” as being a problem because the feminists think government social welfare spending needs to be increased at a faster rate “to keep up with inflation”.
Not one single op-ed article bothers to mention that government spending needs to be put under control because inflation would hurt women by destroying their savings.

*straight from the horse’s mouth*
Women are spenders not savers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Mr. Stricter August 29, 2011 at 22:47

E, you can’t actually save your way to prosperity in this day and age. Production (i.e jobs) requires demand and if everyone decides to horde wealth, there is no demand.

Corporations and the Rich who sit on tons of money for too long or who think they can be rich on interest are the problem, not spendthrift women or even the State (who really do need to change the way they do business)

A need to prevent hording in times of stress has been historically true and has lead to such things as the Nordic praise for generosity (ring giver being high praise) pot latch and others

Now it makes sense to “put aside” for tough times but saving in an off itself unless it is later being used to better ones life or is set aside for those times is pathological

Also re: living on Interest. There was a reason Christianity and Islam forbid charging interest and that Jews who did not were hated . Its destructive for the most part.

Right now that quest for Interest (as vs taking any risk for investment or putting it in recoverable wages or doing something marginally useful with it other than housing and commodity speculation) its the main cause of price inflation. Government borrowing or more properly, an unwillingness to pay for services rendered and the empire is a part but thats not a global issue.

As for austerity, well we can have it but we will pay for it in blood or treasure. Nothing is free including security, safety, decency, comfort, nothing . As they say in Spain “In the beginning God said take what you like buy pay for it.”
If you don’t want a Black or Latino spring in a few years, you’ll need to pay for improvements . And yes you can just buy weapons or in theory resort to drastic measures I suppose. Good luck with that. Mass imprisonment is only marginally effective right now

Failure to pay for butter instead of guns means everyone else who chooses butter does better and in time it means you make less and less and pay more and more for things anyone. Economic obsolescence and instability always lead to poverty (as we are seeing now BTW)

One of the key problems we are having is people trying to get yield. Basically after Japan and everyone decided to gut interest rates (ZIRP) and the natural consequences of trade with poor and crooked nations kicked in (a race to the bottom) the ability of most people to make a good living declined and prices got jacked .

Oh sure a few people at the top are benefiting but between ZIRP and free trade and the speculators the economy is dying.
Whats needed is not austerity but economic populism, by America for America not for the Elite.

Getting there of course, well thats another issue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
LoveTheDesert August 29, 2011 at 23:26

Oh poor little Glen Beck, his beloved wittle country is going down the wittle toilet. Boo freakin’ hoo.

As a white man, I could f##ing care less about this piece of sh#t country. Let the blacks and mexicans and indians have it.

I think it’s enjoyable to watch idiots like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Buchanan squirm and panic because their country and race is dying. Squirm, you mother F$#kers. Squirm, squirm, squirm. Haha.

The only reason they give a crap all of a sudden is because life ain’t too great for their rich as$es. They’re starting to see the writing on the wall, and they’re next. This whole country is going down. The middle class is toast, but now the upper middle class and up, well, things are only getting worse.

*newsflash*
This beta/omega male (who’s never had a decent full time job in my 30 years, just part time crap, or graveyard, with no “benefits”) could care less about your piece of shit country.

There was never a place for me in this country except to serve THE MAN, but now I’m gonna delight in watching your pathetic sh!thole country burn to the ground.

You know why I hate this country. The greed mentality that permeates every facet of American, flag waving, idiot life. That’s why. There is no community here. It’s every man for himself. Except now the rich bastards are starting to feel the heat.

Well, here’s hoping the DOW crashes another 5000 points pretty soon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
Michael August 30, 2011 at 04:26

Not even going to mention Alexander Hamilton? The founder that advocated a permanent national debt in order to foster good relations between the state and the new American aristrocracy?

The same founder who suggested king George Washington and when rebuked said fine lifelong presidency. The same founder who led an army into Pennsylvania with Washington in order to repress tax protestors before the ink on the constitution was even dry?

This started with Hamilton not Wilson, and we live in Hamilton’s America today.

Also considering there is only one year in the history of America when the debt was zero, its a pretty far stretch to say America only began embarking on death by debt under Wilson.

As far as Beck goes. He like the majority of pols and media just wants a different flavor of statism, or a tweaked version of Marxism.

Of course

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Michael August 30, 2011 at 04:32

Mr stricter.

The only way to prosperity is through savings. This true of any age. Hoarding is another animal. It is not to be conflated with savings. You save now to purchase later.

Look read Rothbard or mises. Bastiat explains it well. Think of it like a fire. When the wood is gone it doesn’t burn. That is why you cut the wood in the spring and SAVE it for the winter. Mises.org visit it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Michael August 30, 2011 at 05:49

The constitution was designed to centralize the government. It worked.

The articles of confederation were scrapped precisely because they did not provide a strong national government.

The constitution as written is a politicians wet dream. Even the amended version is but a nuisance to a tyrant. Read what came out of the convention. There were seven articles. Those articles define the government. The bill of rights were later added and even they failed to reign in the supreme government founded by the constitution.

It’s sad that history is forgotten. The intention of the constitution was antithetical to the founding documents of America. Those documents were the articles of confederation, and their purpose was decentralization, quite the opposite of articles 1-7.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
joe August 30, 2011 at 05:58

Gold is the money of kings, silver the money of gentlemen, barter the money of peasants and debt is the money of slaves.

95% or more of the money supply in $, £ and € is comprised of debts to a cartel of private banksters. (You do all know that the “Fed” is a private corporation, right?)

To free ourselves from that yoke requires us to create and use money outside their control.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
joe August 30, 2011 at 06:00

Furthermore, the vast majority of LAND is in the hands of a small cartel as well, see this link here for a review of Cahill’s “Who Own’s The World”:

http://www.ecofascism.com/review21.html

This too must be changed if we are to be free.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eincrou August 30, 2011 at 06:18

Mr. Stricter“E, you can’t actually save your way to prosperity in this day and age. Production (i.e jobs) requires demand and if everyone decides to horde wealth, there is no demand.”

Your initial premise is in error, which invalidates the rest of your post.
Saving money is deferring demand for the future (living beneath your means), and taking on debt is pulling demand forward (living beyond your means). Even if you want to claim savings doesn’t create prosperity, you cannot borrow money from someone who has not first saved the amount you wish him to lend, inflation notwithstanding.
Capital comes from savings. The Keyensian economics you’re peddling about “pent up demand” has proven false, time and time again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Rocco August 30, 2011 at 07:12

The politics of “demand” based capitalism leads invariably to feminism.

Feminism and marriage is about giving her the credit card, you the job and B of A your money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Rocco August 30, 2011 at 07:20

Oh yeah and, as a Russian mra once said in a blog:

“You Americans want capitalism, well you got capitalism in the bedroom, your women are the epitomy of capitalism, it’s called feminism.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Stoltz August 30, 2011 at 09:04

I used to like Beck when he was on CNN, but, like so many other media talking heads, he started to go off the deep end (at around the time he went to Fox, coincidentally). He’s basically a sensationalist, who polarizes issues in order to make more money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Firepower August 30, 2011 at 09:15

Rocco

Talking about the standard Hollywood formula:

“With one possible exception, the white women are remarkably unlikable, and not just because of their racism. Like the housewives portrayed in reality television shows, the housewives of Jackson treat each other, their parents and their husbands with total callousness.”

Hollywood, as the functionary of the Ministry of Liberal Propaganda always prides itself on creating the Perfect Storm: the nexus of pro-black, pro-feminism messages.

They missed the royal flush by not making the spunky Hero Girl Writer a lesbian.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
silent August 30, 2011 at 09:52

Mr. Stricter,

“…we need a bigger state”?
Administered by whom?

“You can’t actually save your way to prosperity in this day and age”
Without saving, there is no Capitalism. Debt-fueled consumption is precisely why the last decade in particular has resulted in such a mess

Sorry man, you’ll have to reexamine your econ basics, pronto

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
silent August 30, 2011 at 09:58

Thanks Joe, Michael, and Eincrou for having your shit together.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
PeterTheGreat August 30, 2011 at 09:59

Are comics heralding the Man Power change? For years the guys in comics have been wimps, mama’s boys, and politically correct. I’ve noticed a recent change as some of the old male pride is coming back into some of the strips – at least occasionally.

Take Dennis the Menace, who was completely neutered into a PC kid. Here’s the one from August 29, 2011

Dennis says: “The best thing about boys is that they’re not GIRLS!”
http://comics.dp.cx/dailystrips-2011.08.29.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
E August 30, 2011 at 12:28

Mr. Stricter

E, you can’t actually save your way to prosperity in this day and age.

Are you sure about that?
In a span of only 30 years China went from being a nation of peasant rice farmers using the water buffalo to plow paddy fields while walking around barefoot stepping on cow dung to launching rockets and putting a man into space. Impressive huh?

And how did the Chinese do it?
No they didn’t spend their way into prosperity they saved their way into it.
It was the American consumer (led by the intellectual and political establishment) that went on a spending spree fueled by credit.
Every once in a 100 years a great nation must make a very stupid mistake. One nation’s miscalculation is another’s opportunity. Americans were dumb enough to believe they could spend their way into prosperity and the Chinese were smart enough to milk it for all it’s worth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Michael August 31, 2011 at 09:06

The main problem is time preference, or to put it another way. People calculate mostly in money, and rarely in time.

Time can not be made. It can only be lost. The only true zero sum game in the economy is time. It is the only finite resource in the entire economy.

Note:

Spare me the physics. when one fuel is depleted another fuel is used. Fuel is the resource not it’s composition, and if the stars are any indication, there is no shortage of fuel creation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Michael August 31, 2011 at 09:10

Infinite supply does not mean the resource is abundant. It just means it will never be completely gone. Economics also has to follow Thermodynamics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky August 31, 2011 at 10:29

“in fact, by most measures, Republican administrations expanded the government further and spent more profligately than did Democrat ones,”

Republicans have always been the dishonest party, saying what uninformed and illeducated people want to hear, while really doing everything in their power to only protect the interests of the rich, well connected, and themselves. I have a laundry list of things that I hate about the Democrats, but the they are still the lesser of two evils. I’d rather the government be led by naive people with good intentions, then manipulative people with selfish intentions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky August 31, 2011 at 10:31

“And how did the Chinese do it?
No they didn’t spend their way into prosperity they saved their way into it.
It was the American consumer (led by the intellectual and political establishment) that went on a spending spree fueled by credit.”

The American ‘FEMALE’ consumer primarily.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Michael August 31, 2011 at 11:42

Right. Because it makes sense to expand the tyranny at the slower democratic rate, than it does the faster republican rate.

Death by a 1000 cuts, or death by beheading. Choose your poison.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Michael August 31, 2011 at 11:43

looks like the italics tag will continue for the rest of the thread. Sorry about that

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
PeterTheGreat August 31, 2011 at 12:15

Jabberwocky #

“And how did the Chinese do it?
No they didn’t spend their way into prosperity they saved their way into it.”

Actually they did it with financial manipulation by the government. The Yuan is not stable, it is a fiat currency also – albeit one controlled by the Government of China, rather than the banks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
blert August 31, 2011 at 16:28

Jean Valjean…

You’re factually incorrect: we DON’T pay for our DoD….

We export the bill to the rest of the planet.

Our mechanism: the US Dollar as global RESERVE CURRENCY.

Year in and year out every other nation on earth has to expand their money supply — using our debt instruments as THEIR high-powered monetary base.

That’s why Russia and China CAN’T STOP buying US Treasuries. For China it’s the price she pays for gaming the forex rate.

Without this mechanism, our DoD budget would break the national economy.

What OBL entirely missed is that America exports peace. And at $ 1,000,000,000,000 per annum it’s our number one export.

Our DoD is so imposing that’s destroyed the defense industries of the other great powers. They can’t buy the necessary US Treasuries AND build a huge defense complex at the same time — unless they’re willing to entirely forgo the nanny state.

——

The Reserve Currency can only be issued by a nation with a dominant navy. Britain used to have that status. She scrapped her fleet. The next day, no one wanted to hold British Pounds — they all came home in a stream.

Should America follow the British lead — and seriously cut back Defense — our overseas dollars will also come back. The loss of naval dominance ALWAYS destroys — utterly — global confidence in a nation.

—–

It’s NOT tricky: we HAVE to raise the retirement age. At a stroke all of the dire projections melt away. It has that much leverage.

We need 67 ASAP and then a steady move to 70. Ultimately, modern medicine is going to make 75 like the old 60. This reality has to be faced up to.

Once done, Medicare, SS, etc. solve themselves. We’d be facing budget surpluses.

As a percentage of GDP and the Federal Budget, DoD is now a joke. All the money is in entitlements.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr. Stricter August 31, 2011 at 19:18

Let me ask y’all a simple question.If everyone is saving, who is buying? If people are not buying where is all that money going to go?

Let me suggest that you check out Planet Money, yeah yeah I know NPR all that but the explain in great detail the problems caused by excess savings

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

Right now the only reason China, Japan and Germany can get away with such high savings is the US picks up the demand. True all of them are good to some degree or other at manufacturing but utilization of that capacity requires buyers, namely us.

As for big markets, all of the have major issues and as such, the issue comes down to. The US needs better wages and wealth distribution or its economy will not recover.

As capital philosophically cannot do this, the state must.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Michael September 3, 2011 at 03:52

Mr stricter,

You save surplus. Fairly simple concept.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Me September 3, 2011 at 12:11

Reading this makes me so happy to be Canadian.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: