Why I am not Voting Obama

@Cycloptichorn,

You have not proved that the recession we just experienced (or the many others that preceeded it) were predictable at all - even despite the obvious historical fact that they were NOT convincingly predicted by anyone at the time. Moreover there is not general agreement about their specific causes, though observers can reliably agree on a collection of operating factors that yielded the result. If they are not predictable then they cannot reliably be prevented by pre-determined regulation.

On the other hand we have ample historical evidence suggesting that authoritarian, highly regulated societies eventually produce only economic stagnation tyranny and human misery. You are positing a fantasy about about an unachievable perfect regulatory world in which everything is known and predictable, and in which authority acts with perfect restraint and foresight, and no unanticipated side effects. Such a world may exist, but it isn't the one we live in now. Perhaps you should read Aesop's fable about the mice belling the cat.

The Dodd Frank bill is inhibiting economic activity that would otherwise result in increased employment and wealth creation. While you may not see its effects, they are real. In a similar vein you appear to deny the existence of thiungs you are not able to see or understand. That is the essence of ignorance.

4 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You have not proved that the recession we just experienced (or the many others that preceeded it) were predictable at all - even despite the obvious historical fact that they were NOT convincingly predicted by anyone at the time.

just because American regulators in the 1980's and 1990's weren't willing to pay attention, doesn't mean the predictions weren't there. Some regulators in other countries listened to the predictions, and the outcomes were less dramatic in those countries (start with Germany and Canada for your analysis).

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Neither Germany nor Canada predicted the nearly worldwide recession that occurred after 2007, though, as you wrote, both had already taken actions that significantly reduced its effects.

In Germany this was in fact a result of an earlier recession largely brought on by their formerly highly restrictive labor laws and a social welfare system that had been corrupted over time. Both were reformed a decade ago - as a result of a then gathering economic crisis - with the very good effects you noted in 2007. Canada had its public debt crisis over a decade ago and benefitted from a government that began decisive efforts to limit government expenditures and reduce public debt that have proved very beneficial in the recent crisis. Moreover Canada had far less government subsidization of capital flows into the mortgage and housing markets and more restrictive bank regulations regarding loan eligibility (an interesting combination of beneficial government action and inaction).

In short I don't agree that either Canada or Germany were immune. Instead they had their crises earlier and in a milder form.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You have not proved that the recession we just experienced (or the many others that preceeded it) were predictable at all - even despite the obvious historical fact that they were NOT convincingly predicted by anyone at the time.

I have not advanced the case that the recession was predictable. I challenge you to find any claim by me that it was. Instead, I have claimed that regulations could have prevented the downturn in one industry from becoming a large recession that swamped our entire financial system - which is exactly what happened.

Quote:

Moreover there is not general agreement about their specific causes, though observers can reliably agree on a collection of operating factors that yielded the result.

This is simply incorrect. There IS general agreement about the specific cause of the current recession, and about how the recession spread from its' originating industry (housing, as you know) to overwhelm our financial system - something that is most decidedly NOT a part of a typical recession. I question why you would even write this, seeing as you never discuss the specific causes or actions that took place - you scrupulously avoid doing so.

Quote:

If they are not predictable then they cannot reliably be prevented by pre-determined regulation.

Downturns in the business cycle cannot be prevented. Downturns that destroy our financial system CAN be prevented through regulation. Once again, this is widely accepted by economists and analysts.

Quote:

On the other hand we have ample historical evidence suggesting that authoritarian, highly regulated societies eventually produce only economic stagnation tyranny and human misery. You are positing a fantasy about about an unachievable perfect regulatory world in which everything is known and predictable, and in which authority acts with perfect restraint and foresight, and no unanticipated side effects. Such a world may exist, but it isn't the one we live in now. Perhaps you should read Aesop's fable about the mice belling the cat.

Blah blah blah, boring, stay on topic please. And do avoid your tendency to Appeal to Extremes; I have never made an argument about a perfect regulatory world. You only bring that up in order to try and make a reasonable argument look silly. Your attempt fails.

Quote:

The Dodd Frank bill is inhibiting economic activity that would otherwise result in increased employment and wealth creation. While you may not see its effects, they are real. In a similar vein you appear to deny the existence of thiungs you are not able to see or understand. That is the essence of ignorance.

In what ways is Dodd-Frank inhibiting that economic activity? How is it worse for me to have some activity inhibited, than to allow activity that leads to recessions and major job losses for Americans? You have not even attempted to answer either of those questions. Not only that, but I would point out that during the period of time between the repeal of Glass-Steagal and the institution of Dodd-Frank, the lack of those regulations did NOT lead to increased employment. It did not lead to financial activity that benefited American in any way. In fact, if you look at the GDP and job numbers, there was almost zero growth during that time period. So I'm going to have to challenge that assertion as well.

And I see that you've dropped the point about the Hong Kong thing. You also didn't respond to my pointing out that you represented my argument to be the exact opposite of what I actually said. Is this what you do, when someone shows you are incorrect? Just pretend that nothing happened, just not respond to what they said? Is that ignorant?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The Dodd Frank bill is inhibiting economic activity that would otherwise result in increased employment and wealth creation. While you may not see its effects, they are real

If it is so real, you aught to be able to prove it other just your saying it is real.
Myths and Facts about the Financial Crisis

Quote:

The conservative spin machine went into overdrive after the financial crisis exploded the claim that unregulated markets always work best. Talking points fed to sympathetic columnists and reporters told an alternate, racially tinged tale: poor people were to blame. In the mythos they created, the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to “loosen underwriting standards” and to lend to the poor and those with poor credit, forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the “800 pound gorilla in the room,” to careen down the path of bad loans, dragging other lenders with them. Incredibly, conservatives blame insufficient regulation of Fannie and Freddie, and cite the Clinton administration as the architect of the mortgage industry’s collapse.

Of course, none of this stands up to scrutiny. Here’s a guide to the most widely spun myths:

Myth #1: De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis

The Facts
Conservative de-regulation left Wall Street with no cop on the beat. Bush’s conservative appointees rolled back regulation and oversight of banks, insurers, lenders, and credit raters. - The explosion in subprime loans after 2000 were made by unregulated mortgage companies, and the vast majority of them were issued to higher income borrowers, not low- to moderate-income borrowers. - The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA) dismantled Depression-era law that had prohibited bank holding companies from owning other financial companies such as investment, commercial banking, and insurance companies. GLBA ignited a wave of mergers and hampered government regulators charged with preventing conflicts of interest and risky financial behavior.

Myth #2: Private lenders were pressured into giving out risky loans

The Facts
Private lenders—not the government-backed Fannie and Freddie—issued the vast majority of subprime loans, and to low- and moderate-income borrowers in particular. Fannie and Freddie did not guarantee and securitize large quantities of subprime loans. - In fact, Fannie Mae actually lost market share because it chose not to “participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005” because it “determined that the pricing offered for these mortgages often was insufficient compensation for the additional credit risk associated with these mortgages.” As economist Dean Baker stated, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector….In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face—kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.” - In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld acknowledged that Fannie and Freddie’s role in Lehman’s demise was “de minimis,” or so small that it does not matter.

Myth #3: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Caused the Crisis

The Facts
While some are attempting to scapegoat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, economist Dean Baker recently stated that while Fannie and Freddie “got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble,” they were “trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector” and actually lost market share to private subprime lenders in the years 2002-2007, when “the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded.” - In a 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission filing (available here) covering its activities in 2004, Fannie Mae stated: “We did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005.” In the report, Fannie Mae also noted the growth of subprime lending and reported, “These trends and our decision not to participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages contributed to a significant loss in our share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances to private-label issuers during this period.” - Additionally, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 6, 2008, that Fannie and Freddie’s failure played a minimal role in Lehman’s demise.

Myth #4: The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the current financial crisis

The Facts
Several media figures have attempted to connect the financial crisis to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), originally passed in 1977 and since amended. However, according to housing experts, a large number of subprime loans were not made under the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions. Additionally, a study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

However, the claim that the CRA is responsible for the current crisis ignores several crucial facts: - The CRA does not cover independent mortgage companies, which issued the vast majority of the loans underlying the crisis. The act applies only to depository banks and thrifts (savings and loan associations) that are federally insured. According to University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, just 20 percent of the subprime mortgages since the late 1990s were issued by CRA-covered lenders. Thus, 80 percent subprime loans were made by lenders not regulated by the CRA. - The CRA actually created more responsible lending. San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet L. Yellen rejected the “tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending,” and noted “that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.” - The act was passed in 1977, well before the subprime loan bonanza occurred. In fact, the Bush administration’s weakening of the CRA coincided with the subprime boom. - Banks did not engage in an orgy of reckless subprime lending to meet CRA obligations; they did so for they same reason they always do: to make money. Only this time, deregulation allowed them to get paid not just for making the loans, but for turning them into securities and trading them (see below).

Myth #5: Progressives have opposed strengthening oversight over Fannie and Freddie

The Facts
Several media figures have accused progressives in Congress of opposing stronger oversight of two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and his predecessor, Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) made efforts to enhance regulatory oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 and sponsoring the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007. Both of these bills called for a new agency to oversee and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Myth #6: Congress funded ACORN in the bailout package

The Facts
Numerous media figures reported that Congress tried to steer money to ACORN in the recent housing bailout bill. In fact, neither the draft proposal nor the final version of the bill contained any language mentioning ACORN. Those making the false claim were misrepresenting a provision—since removed—that would have directed 20 percent of any profits realized on troubled assets purchased under the plan into two previously established funds: the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund, which, under the law authorizing them, distribute funds through state block grants and through competitive application processes, respectively.

(links embedded at the source above)

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Nobody is immune in the world economy; they are all tied together through the banking system.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, thank you for your comprehensive reply.

I think we are probably closer to agreement than disagreement…but the space between us is crucial.

Your earlier comment to “err on the side of freedom” was the reason I commented initially.

To get back to that, I simply wanted to make the point that “to err on the side of freedom” often will mean to err on the side of more regulations…not fewer.

While we are in agreement that both of us want to err on the side of freedom, I want to stress that “erring on the side of freedom” CANNOT be construed as meaning “erring on the side of less regulation.” Sometimes it means that…I grant that. But sometimes it means the opposite—and it is important to note that.

I do not know for sure your political leanings…although I suspect they lean more to the right than to the left. Conservatives tend to hold government and regulations in very low esteem. I think that is because they tend to make the mistake I’ve just discussed.

Freedom is a fine thing…something for which we all long. But in a society as complex as ours—with people living so close to one another and with the kinds of interactions closely affiliated people must endure—a lot of government and regulations is needed and wanted.

Conservatives also tend to be much more comfortable with regulations that protect their oxen…and to be antagonistic toward regulations that gore them. They feel the exact opposite about regulations that gore or protect the other side’s oxen.

In an Anarchy…a “street smart” will do a hell of a lot better than a “Wall Street smart” individual.

Just something to consider.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You wrote,

Quote:

I do not know for sure your political leanings…although I suspect they lean more to the right than to the left. Conservatives tend to hold government and regulations in very low esteem.

+

Your statement made me laugh - considering what the VA gov and legislators tried to do with women's vagina. None of the GOP candidates spoke against that legislation, nor any conservative that I know of.

There's a huge divide between what they say and what they try to do.

They also want a government picture ID for people to vote. They claimed dead people were voting, but research into that claim found it to be false. They use fear; not facts or common sense.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Would the bureaucrats even know if the dead were voting? Remember, these are the same people who sent more than a half-billion dollars in retirement benefits to peeps that had been dead for years.

What seems like common sense to some of us may be like rocket-science to them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

While we are in agreement that both of us want to err on the side of freedom, I want to stress that “erring on the side of freedom” CANNOT be construed as meaning “erring on the side of less regulation.” Sometimes it means that…I grant that. But sometimes it means the opposite—and it is important to note that.

OK, but I believe more often than not it really means less regulation. We are, after all, where we are in this area. No one is advocating reducing the scope of restrictions on violence and criminal activities directly sustasining public order. So I'll rephrase my contention to say that, with respect to the creation of broader and more far-reaching regulation, I am inclined to err on the side of too little and fewer restrictions on individual activity.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not know for sure your political leanings…although I suspect they lean more to the right than to the left. Conservatives tend to hold government and regulations in very low esteem. I think that is because they tend to make the mistake I’ve just discussed.

You are largely correct about my political leanings and the general views of many conservatives about intrusive governments. However, I believe you may be wrongfully prejudging their motives. I have a great deal of experience with several elements of our Federal bureaucracy and ample good reason to be skeptical of its actions. Such organizations everywhere tend to be power-seeking; protective of their self-interests, wasteful, and resistant to being held to account for what they do or don't achieve. Enhancing their power, cost and scope of activities will make us all poorer and less in controil of our lives.

This country was founded on principles of limited government; and a preference for local control of governmental activities; and a high degree of individual and collective initiative by its citizenry. All this is very well described by Alexis de Toqueville in his well-known "Democracy in America". It is interesting to compare his observations with the contemporary political proposals of the so-called "progressive" elements of our political scene -- it makes one realize ho far we have descended from those principles. I don't attribute it at all to the increase in the population or the complexity of our society. Your statement;

Quote:

Freedom is a fine thing…something for which we all long. But in a society as complex as ours—with people living so close to one another and with the kinds of interactions closely affiliated people must endure—a lot of government and regulations is needed and wanted.

, is one with I will disagree.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Conservatives also tend to be much more comfortable with regulations that protect their oxen…and to be antagonistic toward regulations that gore them. They feel the exact opposite about regulations that gore or protect the other side’s oxen.

I believe this is generally true of both conservatives and progressives. Who doesn't want some government-enforced preference or monopoly for their favored activities? A little affirmative action on our behalf by the government, and/or the government-enforced transfer of some of someone else's property or the benefits of his labor is generally favored by all potential recipients.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

That can happen to any government when the dead citizen has no one to report of their demise - or someone else is collecting those benefits under fraud.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

George, thanks for the reply and for keeping this discussion reasonable and civil. All too often these “discussions” deteriorate into something less endearing. I am enjoying this one.

Let me start by saying that I truly understand where you are coming from…but the areas where we do not agree are still significant and probably irreconcilable--so my guess is we will never meet completely.

I’m going to respond to a couple of things you wrote in this last reply…not all by any means. If you have anything in particular for which you want a comment, please ask me for it.

As regards “erring on the side of freedom”, you wrote:

Quote:

OK, but I believe more often than not it really means less regulation.

George, with all the respect in the world, in a complex world like this, I think the exact opposite. Honestly! Only the regulations and laws keep us free…not the “I want to be able to do whatever I want.” Erring on the side of freedom for me almost always means erring on the side of more regulations to insure that one group or individual does not have an unfair advantage over another.

I doubt we will ever agree on this...or that we will be able to agree on the "unfair", but so be it.

Quote:

No one is advocating reducing the scope of restrictions on violence and criminal activities directly sustasining public order.

Yeah, that is for sure. But the restrictions on violence and criminal activity (which really is just defying regulations)…is there more to protect the intellectually advantaged over the physically advantaged than the other way around.

If those laws and regulations were not in place, those with physical advantages (and street smarts) might lord it over those less physically gifted…even if the physically less gifted had significant intellectual advantages. (Not saying this is for certain…but it certainly would offer advantages.)

Conservatives are anxious to advocate for strong laws and regulations that restrict the advantages physically endowed individuals have…in order to protect less physically gifted/more intellectually gifted individuals. Conservatives want "Wall Street smart" to win over "street smart."

Said another way: Kings didn’t want laws that kept the rights of kings in check…they wanted laws that kept subjects in check.

We have a more sophisticated and subtle form of that kind of regulation, George. Conservatives tend to like and have no particular problem with laws that favor the nobility over the commoner. What conservatives do not like are laws and regulations that might hamper how much they might be able to achieve. They certainly do not want regulations that limit how much money they can make; how much they can keep; or that deal with the impact of the disparity between what the very rich have and the very poor. Conservatives are generally not interested in laws and regulations that suggest… “we have plenty of everything—more sharing is in order.” They are more interested in, "What's mine is mine...and to hell with anyone who does not have enough."

I liken it to a kids playground where a large group of kids are playing, but only a very few kids own the toys…and are refusing to allow other kids to play with them.

It is a worldview that probably cannot be appreciated by anyone holding the opposite view...and if you are not able to, I understand.

I’m glad we are discussing it in any case.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

One guy died in 1971 and continued to receive monthly government benefits for the next 37 years Smile

Only amounted to a little over $500K, though. Peanuts in the larger scheme of things.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I do agree that a conversation intended to get past the superfical aspects of a subject and explore conflicting views in some detail is a better use of the site (from my perspective) than the invective that usually occurs.

Frank wrote:

Let me start by saying that I truly understand where you are coming from…but the areas where we do not agree are still significant and probably irreconcilable--so my guess is we will never meet completely.

I’m going to respond to a couple of things you wrote in this last reply…not all by any means. If you have anything in particular for which you want a comment, please ask me for it.

As regards “erring on the side of freedom”, you wrote:
Quote:
OK, but I believe more often than not it really means less regulation.

George, with all the respect in the world, in a complex world like this, I think the exact opposite. Honestly! Only the regulations and laws keep us free…not the “I want to be able to do whatever I want.” Erring on the side of freedom for me almost always means erring on the side of more regulations to insure that one group or individual does not have an unfair advantage over another.

I doubt we will ever agree on this...or that we will be able to agree on the "unfair", but so be it.

I believe you may be arguing the point on a too abstract plane. One principle of our legal system is that the only actions that can be prohibited by government are those that are specifically named in advance under democratically established laws, and then only in areas specified in the eneumerated powers of the Federal government. We have gone a long way past that, and nowhere in our constitution is government given the power to ensure that all actions by its citizens are subject to anything so broad as the fairness doctrine you suggest. Indeed such a doctrine arguably opens the door to almost any action on the part of government, much as Lenin rationalized the "elimination of the irreconcilables" in his pursuit of a socialist paradise which he imagined would benefit everyone. Sadly, after the slaughter of tens of millions only poverty and tyranny resulted. I believe a central lesson of human history is that such discretion on the part of any ruling power almost always results in death and tyranny. The outcome may have an element of fairness, in that nearly everyone suffers equally, but I doubt that you would find it attractive.

Cyclo would label this as an argument from extremes, suggesting that it is somehow fatally flawed as a result. I believe that is sophistry on his part, and that the lessons of human history are fairly clear on this point.

There are models of successful progressive authoritarian societies in this world - Singapore and the Scandanavian societies come to mind. However, they haven't so far proven to be very exportable or even enduring. Indeed the present state of the social democracies in Europe very strongly suggests that they are almost always unsustainable. Interestingly, in the Scandanavian countries recent political & economic trends have been fairly consistently back towards more conservative policies.

You appear to be suggesting that smart but physically weak, wall street smart conservatives seek unfair protections from strong, street smart, but otherwise unintelligent and non-productive liberals. I believe that is a very distorted and oversimplified view of the world and of human nature as well. These qualities, and many others besides (including ambition, energy, motivation, creativity, initiative, etc.) vary more or less independently among people and nearly all combinations occur with substantial frequency.

"Fairness" is a vague and easily distorted concept, and ensuring such fairness for such a heterogenious species as human beings requires god like powers of which human society is incapable. Moreover experience teaches us that even the attempt to achieve equal outcomes for people corrupts the group, lowers production and impoverishes everyone. Such doctrines appear to be incompatible with human nature as it really is.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Cyclo would label this as an argument from extremes, suggesting that it is somehow fatally flawed as a result. I believe that is sophistry on his part, and that the lessons of human history are fairly clear on this point.

It's only a valid argument if those you oppose are pursuing what you describe. They aren't and never have. Nobody is arguing for unrestrained power vested in an executive and nobody is arguing that we should have a 'socialist paradise.' So your argument - while valid historically - doesn't address the concerns raised by the people you are talking to.

I think the main problem with your position is that our supreme court - the arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional in our country - has long ruled that your vision of what is permissible is far more restrictive than what the Constitituion actually allows. And not just liberal activist judges, either - Scalia has done as much as anyone to ensure that my vision of what is and isn't Federal business, and what can and can't be regulated, is much more likely to be the case than your vision.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, As a matter of fact, Singapore is a good example, because they have universal health care ensured by the government that everybody can afford. It's competition at its best; they all get excellent health care whether they spend over $1,000/night in an executive type room or $99/night in a six bed ward.

Too bad Obamacare didn't even consider the best options available for US citizens whether it's Singapore, Canada, or even the Swiss which is second highest in cost, but their standard of living is also higher.

Germany, of coarse, has the oldest universal health care, but their biggest problem has been the generous program they had while their demographics from immigration and aging was not addressed soon enough.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Singapore is a good example but it is far from clear that their model is either exportable or will endure long there. Political freedom is severely restricted and their population too is ageing at a rapid rate, making their economic future unceretain at best as their neighbors in Indonesia and Malaysia abandon their former retrograde planned economies.

With female fertility of 1.2 and a median age 7.5 years greater than in this country, Germany is beyond saving. It's only a matter of time.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I have several friends who live in Singapore, and they told me that the harsh rules doesn't bother them, because they get used to them. I can understand their strict rules concerning their environment, because they are a small city state that can easily become chaotic without them.

The Raffles Hotel Long Bar is the only place you can throw trash on the floor. They serve shelled peanuts (I think on purpose) so they can throw them on the floor.

I was in Germany last November, and spent five days in Hamburg with McT, Fiona, Walter and Ulla for three days. There are plenty of new construction going on in Hamburg, and the other cities we visited, including Berlin, seems to be well maintained. They don't seem to be in the cusp of an economic regression any time soon. I saw plenty of young working age folks in almost every city.

0 Replies

@revelette,

That was a good post rev. You and Frank make a good case for not erring on the side of less regulation.

Phil Gramm knew what he was doing when he introduced the bill...was he a lap dog for Citygroup?...and Democrat John Dingell argued vehemently against the bill stating it would create banks "too big to fail". He also predicted that the government would end up bailing out these institutions.

george,
It seems that Frank and Rev and people like myself are concerned when an elephant is hired to guard the peanut warehouse. The end result many times is that the "little guys" pay the bill.

1 Reply

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

george,
It seems that Frank and Rev and people like myself are concerned when an elephant is hired to guard the peanut warehouse. The end result many times is that the "little guys" pay the bill.

While you concerns are understandable , your metaphor would constitute a less vapid and trivial contribution to the discussion if you also noted that the elephant in question also organized a disproportionate share of the production of the peanuts, and that experience to date consistently revealed that without him the supply of them would be very quickly reduced for all.

1 Reply

Why I am not Voting Obama

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know