Without The Shedding of Wealth There is no Emission of Smoke

On January 3, 2010, In Congress, Domestic Policy, Economy, Environment, By Andrew Schwartz

In 1513, the Medici Pope Leo X was facing the likely possibility of a bankrupt Roman Catholic Church. The magnific building projects to bolster the church’s image were begun with no foresight to their long-term economic consequences, and the crusades into the Holy Land and other foreign proselytizing campaigns had drained the papal treasury. Christendom, as any centralized power is wont to do, had become indebted to her constituents and the world.

In order to combat the Holy Deficit, the Pope began to issue indulgences to the lowly sinners of the congregation in order to forgive them—not of their past transgressions, but of their future sins. Of course, this was not an act of spiritual altruism; forgiveness came at a tangible price, which was imposed on a progressive scale determined by one’s wealth and the atrocity of their sin. The Catholic Church had become so dogmatic and authoritative that unsuspecting and fearful Catholics bought into this scheme without question—to oppose this plan could have meant the eternal damnation of one’s earthly soul.

 

History, despite her eternal struggle for progress, has been ordained once again to repeat her orbit around the selfish desires of man. (more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • •
 
6 Comments
Leave A Response

AIG, Silas Marner, and a misdirected rage

On March 18, 2009, In Economy, By Andrew Schwartz

George Eliot’s “Silas Marner: The Weaver of Raveloe” was published during the Industrial Revolution in England. It tells a tale of virtue, the rewards of hard work, and the inevitable and eventual punishment of evil against your neighbor.
rAIGe

Silas Marner, expressing his rage.

Dunstan Cass is the selfish, deceitful, and corrupt villain in this classic story, and his family is the wealth and government of the city. When his spineless brother Godfrey gets drunk, Dunstan convinces Godfrey to give him money intended for rent. When Godfrey sobers, he demands payment from Dunstan in order to pay his own bills. Unable to return the squandered money, Dunstan convinces him to sell his horse to raise the necessary funds. After the horse is sold, but before it is delivered, Dunstan subsequently kills it during a hunt. Undiscovered in this atrocity, Dunstan burgles the title character’s home, steals his hard-earned fortune, and seemingly gets away with it (he is found dead at the bottom of a well sixteen years later along with the gold he stole).

 

 

Today, President Obama, congress, and the populace publicly cast their outrage at AIG, the multinational insurance corporation of whom the government owns eighty percent. Newswires, bloggers, and commentators went berserk at the revelation of AIG’s disbursement of bonuses to executives, which totaled nearly $165 million. Employees received threats from private citizens and the company had to post armed guards at their headquarters to keep peace. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley even expressed his desire that AIG executives “resign or go commit suicide.” President Obama asked, “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Obama says economy is sound

On March 14, 2009, In Economy, Speeches, By Andrew Schwartz

Remember on the campaign trail when John McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are strong? Remember how liberals, Democrats, and everyone in the media condemned him as “out of touch” after he said these words? Remember how pundits consistently declared that this was the cause of the GOP ticket’s downfall?

President Obama, in a meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, insisted that “every investor can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States.” Don’t get me wrong, I would much rather hear optimism spew out of the First Vocal Cords than his recent perpetual pessimism, but how can he say this right now when the economy is anything but sound?

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Obama’s Governmental Philanthropy

On February 25, 2009, In Economy, By Andrew Schwartz

Let’s face it. President Obama has a remarkable amount of trust in the American people; people in general, for that matter. And the feeling is reciprocal. His campaign platform of “Hope” and “Change” brought an emotional enthusiasm from his supporters passionately yearning for everything he promised. Millions of Americans voted for him expecting him to new era of transparency, responsibility, and a governmental metamorphosis. The international community hailed his ascension as the World’s Citizen, and his promise to restore America to its global good-standing. His ability to connect equally with a foreign head of state and the common American alike is indeed a remarkable feat worthy of some adulation—at face value, anyway.

 

In theory, his rhetorical abilities and global popularity would enable him to fulfill what he promised—to change the world. In all practicality, however, he will fall short of the magnific expectations he and his supporters have set. The reason for this is simple: governmental altruism does not work and his entire economic philosophy is based on it.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
2 Comments
Leave A Response

Fiscalism is a Hate Crime

On November 24, 2008, In Domestic Policy, Economy, By Andrew Schwartz

As a taxpayer and consumer from corporations who get their money from large conglomerate banks such as Citigroup, I feel I am entitled to a bailout.

 

After all, how can I continue buying from corporations who are getting their loans from large conglomerate banks if I am only paying more in taxes to save the conglomerate banks who provide the loans to the corporations?

 

Or how can I buy from the Small Businesses who purchase their goods from corporations who get loans from large conglomerate banks if they go out of business because of having to pay more in taxes in order to bail out those large conglomerate banks who provide loans to corporations?

 

Or how can I purchase an automobile from the rescued automobile corporations who get their loans from large conglomerate banks who have been bailed out if my money is already going toward bailing out those automobile corporations who get their loans from large conglomerate banks.

 

Or why should I be discriminated against just because I lived within my means, did not take any unnecessary risks, and did not count on the economic bubble to be infinitely elastic. In fact, I should be rewarded for my fiscal conservatism by a government bailout. This is a clear human rights violation against us frugalists. Fiscalism should be a hate crime. The government should be willing to protect all facets of fiscal diversity, not just those who chose to destroy their own companies.

 

By the way, that is sardonic irony…

Tagged with: • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Less Income, More Spending

On November 23, 2008, In Economy, By Andrew Schwartz

Obama is reportedly considering delaying his rollback of the Bush tax cuts to the Upper Class of America. This apparently comes after great consideration of the possibility that raising taxes in an economic flu is not a good thing. Like Republicans have been saying since he announced this policy.

 

A few questions for his supporters: Will you be upset that he has failed to deliver on redistributing the wealth? Will you be upset at his continuing Bush’s policies of unfairness? Will you be upset that he is now showing preferential treatment to the Upper Class? Probably not, because most of you never cared about or understood the issues anyway.

(more…)

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Deflationary Spiral and Government Spending

On November 22, 2008, In Domestic Policy, Economy, By Andrew Schwartz

Obama’s “bold” stimulus package is anything but. He is not venturing into any unchartered terrirtory. He has not come up with any new ideas. He is using a simple variation-on-a-liberal-theme, which involves more and more government spending in order to get out of a crisis. FDR did it, Carter did it, now Obama plans to do it.

 

Throughout this entire politicization of economics, hundreds of solutions have been offered. Coming from the right is mostly the idea that the government should stay out of it. Coming from the left (and McCain and Bush) is the idea that infusing the economy with “capital” is the way to go; nevermind where that “capital” comes from. One thing I have not heard from a prominent politician is a reduction in government spending.

 

We have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and Obama has warned of “millions” more. Have there been any federal government layoffs? Has there been an effort to curb spending by any government agency? Has there been any sort of inclination for the federal government to set the example and live within their means? The answer to all three of these has been “no.”

 

The United States Postal Service was reportedly considering layoffs in October, but then they denied it in November and announced a raise in rates beginning January 1, 2009 (as if that is going to encourage the use of snail-mail). Government agencies have been spending their budget to the fullest over the past year; some have even been spending more. (If they don’t spend their budget to the fullest, they don’t get the same amount next year.) And now the Obama administration is announcing a “bold” stimulus package that will increase government spending by trillions over the next four years, although he hasn’t exactly given a number.

 

Obama claims that this deflationary spiral will increase the defecit. What is he talking about? If prices go down and the defecit remains the same, it is only an increase in relative defecit. The only way to increase the actual defecit is by spending more money. If you owe $1,000 on your Visa for a computer you bought, you owe $1,000 regardless of the value of the dollar or the computer; it may just be a little harder to pay off. If you continue to use your Visa you will owe more.

 

But Obama’s answer to the economic flu has been to create more and more government jobs (Office of the President-elect; Change.gov; technology czar…), and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet…

Tagged with: • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
« Previous Entries
Go To Top »