"Anatomy of a Crisis:2008"

So, what does this have to do with Milton Friedman?

If you remember the quote presented at the beginning of this expose, then you know that Milton Friedman was against Government intervention in the economy by and large. Friedman felt that any intervention by the Government in the economy would ultimately serve only to distort the market leading to an inevitable crash.

What does Friedman’s arch enemy, left wing pundit Naomi Klein, (the woman who is spearheading a campaign to keep Chicago University from naming an institute after the late Fridman) have to say about the current crisis? Klein wrote the following for thenation.com:

And the disaster capitalists have been busy--from private firefighters already on the scene in Northern California's wildfires, to land grabs in cyclone-hit Burma, to the housing bill making its way through Congress. The bill contains little in the way of affordable housing and shifts the burden of mortgage default to taxpayers in an effort to make sure that the banks (that made bad loans) get some payouts. No wonder it is known in the hallways of Congress as "The Credit Suisse Plan," after one of the banks that generously proposed it [Source: Thenation.com].

Really Naomi? “The bill contains little in the way of affordable hosing?” Perhaps Ms.Klein is not aware that bills containing “affordable housing” legislation are the exact reason we are in our current crisis. The only intelligent thing Ms. Klein had to say in this article was that “the burden of mortgage default [goes to the] taxpayers." However, her statement is not intelligent. Ms. Klein intended to show that government is favoring big business, and your are paying for it. The fallacy of this argument is that government told these lending companies to make the loans that caused them to fail. The government is not bailing anyone out; they are trying to fix their own liberal plan gone wrong, and in the process pundits like Klein and politicians like Obama are trying to tell you that big business is the enemy. They are telling you that “the corporations got greedy, and that this is why we are in this mess.” So why won’t Ms. Klein, or Obama own up to this crisis and admit that: ‘our socialist policies, while well intentioned, caused the current problem.” Why? First of all, such a statement would kill the presidential campaign of Obama; and secondly, it would validate the exact policies of laissez-faire capitalism ( which was championed by Milton Friedman and applied by Reagan).

Is Friedman right? Does the Government cause our economic problems? Or is Ms. Klein, and Barack Obama right in that the government needs to have policies like “loan affirmative action,” and needs to get involved in the market to keep it operating smoothly?

Let’s have the current chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, answer that question:

“Despite the varied theories espoused by many establishment economists, it was none other than the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and the horrific suffering, deprivation and dislocation America and the world experienced in its wake. At least, that's the clearly stated view of current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.” [Source: Worldnetdaily.com]

Friedman is right, and the writing is on the wall. The government caused our current crisis, and now the government will do more harm by trying to fix it. If you want policies that “redistribute the wealth,” and support ideas like “loan affirmative action,” look no further then Obama, and pick up Naomi Klein’s new book. If, however, you are an astute person and you picked up on the fact that every time the government legislated our economy it caused collapse, then I suggest you really think about who you plan on casting your ballot for come November 2008, and where your political alliances rest.

Obama, Clinton, and Kelin believe that the only way to fix the economy is for the government to get involved, to place the burden on the taxpayer so that they can have policies such as "loan affirmative action" and can "spread the wealth around. It was good when we spread the wealth around so we could get more low income people into homes, wasn't it Obama, Clinton and Klein? It will be good when we "spread the wealth around" and use our tax dollars to bail out the banks so they can save the bogus mortgages you had them write, right? People foolishly assume that Obama's simple policy of "taking from Peter to give to Paul" will work, but as all the evidence presented here in shows, such economic policies ultimately lead to economic disaster. With all the comparisons of Obama to another Illinois Senator, Abraham Lincoln, perhaps we should let the indomitable 16th president have the closing remarks to help determine once and for all if the liberal plan of "spreading the wealth around" really works and if the comparison of Obama to Lincoln is apt:

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
-Abraham Lincoln

Liberal/Marxist economic theory demands that the government does as it please with the taxpayer and the product of his labor, to tacitly own him, and to "spread [his] wealth around." Are these liberal policies not then tyranny? That said it should be clear that the liberal/socialistic policies devised by Marx and adopted by American's political left, despite their good intentions, have been the biggest social and economic catastrophe, not only in the history of the United States, but of Russia, Vietnam, West Germany, China, Cuba, and the world at large.