Tweet
oh - that's all we had to do.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21393.html
...or the "green tech" bubble obama is about to create
I'm pretty sure the reason Bush didn't intervene was because the official position was that the housing market was fine?
Let's imagine what would happen if Republicans and their big-business friends get a hold of Congress, and decide that all of their businesses deserve to expand while their competitors, oddly enough, need to be "de-bubbled"?
What of business entrepreneurs? Having to now look over their shoulder - lest someone decide they are growing too fast. This is "progress" - progress that will be monitored and decided by Obama.
What frightens me is how this shows the disillusionment of politicians. How would they pay for the regulatory agencies' creation? Tax money. What creates tax revenue? Economic growth. To willingly pass a plan that deliberately ignores its own serious funding paradox - to me, it shows that politicians truly do believe that money grows on trees. There is no thought about the fiscal constraints.
I hope this doesn't get past even the 'debate' stage - but the fact that Obama is seriously considering such a ludicrous idea really sort of puts me on edge, because he obviously has support for it. And that he could talk about something like that - which is so obviously unconstitutional it hurts - without any legal qualms also puts me on edge.
Am I out of touch with reality? Does this seem like a good idea?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21393.html
But what Obama rarely says about ending the “cycle of bubble and bust” is this: He’s prepared to intervene to make sure that kind of red-hot growth doesn’t occur.
And he’s willing to do it with added government regulation if needed to prevent any one sector of the economy from getting out of balance – the way the dot-com boom did in the 1990s and the real-estate market did earlier this decade.
And he’s willing to do it with added government regulation if needed to prevent any one sector of the economy from getting out of balance – the way the dot-com boom did in the 1990s and the real-estate market did earlier this decade.
He said that’s one of the reasons why the Bush administration didn’t intervene in the housing bubble. “Nobody wanted to mess up the party,” said Oxley. “They were hoping against hope that it would naturally slow down. Not too many people are courageous enough to make that call.”
“One man’s expansion is another man’s bubble,” said Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian CATO Institute. “I have a lot of doubts about the administration’s ability and willingness to solve booms and busts,” he said. “And I’m worried that it reflects an ideological hubris that the economy can be planned.”
What of business entrepreneurs? Having to now look over their shoulder - lest someone decide they are growing too fast. This is "progress" - progress that will be monitored and decided by Obama.
What frightens me is how this shows the disillusionment of politicians. How would they pay for the regulatory agencies' creation? Tax money. What creates tax revenue? Economic growth. To willingly pass a plan that deliberately ignores its own serious funding paradox - to me, it shows that politicians truly do believe that money grows on trees. There is no thought about the fiscal constraints.
I hope this doesn't get past even the 'debate' stage - but the fact that Obama is seriously considering such a ludicrous idea really sort of puts me on edge, because he obviously has support for it. And that he could talk about something like that - which is so obviously unconstitutional it hurts - without any legal qualms also puts me on edge.
Am I out of touch with reality? Does this seem like a good idea?
Comment