Wall Street – Greed Is Good

Obama: Caps Executive Pay Tied to Bailout Money

Obama Slams Wall Street for $18 Billion Bonuses

Glenn Beck on Obama’s ‘Change’: Socialism

BAILOUT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Rise and Fall of the National Industrial Recovery Act

Supreme Court vs. New Deal’s NIRA

Lawrence G. Hrebiniak: The Mismanagement of America, Inc.

Milton Friedman – Greed

Milton Friedman – Free to Choose 1990 – 1 of 5 The Power of the Market PL 3/5

What is both irresponsible and unconstitutional is for the Federal Government to bailout failing banks and companies that are “too big to fail”.

If they are too big to fail–they are both too big and should fail.

Government intervention leads only to more government intervention.

First the government bails the bank or company out.

Then the Federal Government insists on conditions as to how the executives should run their business.

The Federal Government should not been running businesses.

That is not the  function of government

Boycott all companies and banks that have accepted a Federal Government bailout.

Do not work for any company or bank that has accepted a Federal Government bailout.

Time to cap the size of Federal Government spending and the National Debt–the Federal Government is out of control and fiscally irresponsible

When have you heard anything on the news about Federal Government employees being laid off?

The last time was when President Clinton cut the size of the military by about a third–the so-called “peace dividend”.

How many Government Departments has President Obama closed?

How many White House staffers (over 1,700) have been laid-off?

Time for some real change–downsize the Federal Government–starting with the White House staff.

No bailouts, no salary caps–smaller government.

Real Hope, Real Change.

Background Articles and Videos

Survival of the fittest

“Survival of the fittest” is a phrase which is shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, Spencer drew parallels to his ideas of economics with Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution by what Darwin termed natural selection.

Although Darwin used the phrase “survival of the fittest” as a synonym for “natural selection”,[1] it is a metaphor, not a scientific description.[2] It is not generally used by modern biologists, who use the phrase “natural selection” almost exclusively.

An interpretation of the phrase to mean “only the fittest organisms will prevail” (a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself on an ongoing basis will survive as a species, not just the “fittest” ones. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be “survival of the fit enough.”[3] Furthermore, the term “fittest” or “fit enough” refers only to an organism’s ability to survive, and not necessarily to physical strength, intelligence, or any other characteristic regarded as positive by human beings. Thus, “survival of the fittest” could simply mean “survival of those who are better equipped for surviving,” which is a tautology.[4]

While the British economist Herbert Spencer is often credited with introducing the phrase “survival of the fittest” in his 1851 work Social Statics (relating to free market economics) or his First Principles of a New system of Philosophy of 1862, he actually did not use the phrase until after reading Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. and introduced it in his Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444, writing “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection’, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”^[5]

In The Man Versus The State Spencer used the phrase in a postscript to justify a plausible explanation for why his theories would not be adopted by “societies of militant type.” He uses the term in the context of societies at war, and the form of his reference suggests that he is applying a general principle.^[6]

Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever.

In the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin used the phrase “natural selection“,^[7] and preferred that phrase. However, Spencer’s Principles of Biology drew parallels between his economic theories and Darwin’s biological ones and made first use in print of the phrase “survival of the fittest”. Darwin agreed with Alfred Russel Wallace that this phrase avoided the troublesome anthropomorphism of “selecting”, though it “lost the analogy between nature’s selection and the fanciers’.” It was used by Darwin in the 5th edition of The Origin published on 10 February 1869, in a secondary header of Chapter 4 about natural selection^[1] and at several places in the text, mostly using the phrase “Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest”. He gave full credit to Spencer, writing “I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.” At this time the word “fittest” would have primarily meant “most suitable” or “most appropriate” rather than “in the best physical shape”.^{[citation needed]}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Sen. Coburn: Obama’s stimulus is “morally reprehensible” and “the worst act of generational theft in our nation’s history”

By Michelle Malkin  

“…Sen. Coburn gave a terrific, moving, conservatively-grounded, and inspired floor speech late last night on the Obama Generational Theft Act of 2009. He defended market capitalism, assailed wealth distributionist programs and government corruption, and decimated the pork in the Democrats’ behemoth package.

Most importantly, he outlined repeatedly how this debt stimulus would be built on the backs of our children and grandchildren. He said last night on the floor: “This plan steals the future of the next two generations.”

On his website (and in a WSJ op-ed), Sen. Coburn reiterated this theme: “When the American people learn what this bill contains they will reject it. This bill is about spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need. We got into this mess by spending and investing money that didn’t exist. We won’t get out of this mess by doing more of the same. Yet, that is precisely what we are doing,” Dr. Coburn said. “Instead of delivering change, this bill celebrates the politics of the past. The bill represents both the mindless partisanship of recent decades, and the failed interventionist policies of the 1930’s. The Senate can, and must, do much better. As currently written, this bill represents the worst act of generational theft in our nation’s history.” …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/04/sen-coburn-obamas-stimulus-is-morally-reprehensible-and-the-worst-act-of-generational-theft-in-our-nation%e2%80%99s-history/ 

President Wants Cap On Executive Pay

“…CBS/ AP) President Barack Obama wants to impose a $500,000 pay cap on executives whose firms receive government financial rescue funds, a dramatic intervention into corporate governance in the midst of financial crisis.

The new restrictions, described by an administration official familiar with the new rules, are to be announced Wednesday morning at the White House. The steps set the stage for the administration’s unveiling next week of a new framework for spending the money that remains in the $700 billion financial rescue fund.

“If the taxpayers are helping you, then you’ve got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog,” President Barack Obama said Tuesday.

The move comes amid a national outcry over extravagant bonuses for executives heading companies seeking taxpayer dollars to remain solvent.

Call it the maximum wage for some high-earners.

The administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been made public, said the most restrictive limits would apply only to struggling large firms that receive “exceptional assistance” in the future. Healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital would have more leeway.

Firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to compensate them with stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds, the official said. …”

http://www.wwj.com/President-Wants-Cap-On-Executive-Pay/3786453 

President Nixon Imposes Wage and Price Controls

August 15, 1971.  In a move widely applauded by the public and a fair number of (but by no means all) economists, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls.  The 90 day freeze was unprecedented in peacetime, but such drastic measures were thought necessary.  Inflation had been raging, exceeding 6% briefly in 1970 and persisting above 4% in 1971.  By the prevailing historical standards, such inflation rates were thought to be completely intolerable.

The 90 day freeze turned into nearly 1,000 days of measures known as Phases One, Two, Three, and Four.  The initial attempt to dampen inflation by calming inflationary expectations was a monumental failure. 

In 1971, the U.S. was also in the process of leaving the gold standard, which was intended to allow the value of the U.S. dollar to fall.  Compounding the situation were such events as Fed Chairman Arthur Burns and the Committee on Interest and Dividends (part of the controls apparatus) strenuously opposing banks attempting to raise the U.S. prime rate from 6% to 6.25% in February 1973.  Inflation rates were below 4% at the start of 1973, but reached 9% by the start of 1974, which would have made the real prime rate a negative 3%.  At the same time, interest rates were going up in foreign countries, putting enormous pressure on the dollar.

The wage and price controls were mostly dismantled by April, 1974.  By that time, the U.S. inflation rate had reached double digits. 

http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and the Profit Motive 1 of 2

Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and the Profit Motive 2 of 2

The Evolution Of Herbert Spencer 

Nixon imposes wage-price freeze

Senator Tom Coburn Tells Me Why He Likes Bloggers

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Bailedout Banks Outrageous and Irresponsible Behaviour–E-Verify All Their Employees Now!

Bad Government Intervention Requires Bad Government Bank-The Road Map Out Of The World Economic Crisis–Stabilize–Stimulate–Strengthen–Simultaneously! 

BO’s Raw Deal: Obama’s Two Year Recession and Two Year Hyperinflation–Hopeless & Small Change!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats