Here she is in top form explaining to us why the Fed's monetary policy is bad and is causing inflation:
In the words of those great political analysts, the Stereo MC's: I see through you...I see through you
While she is correct in saying an increase in the fiat money supply will (is) cause price inflation, I couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of the situation. Could it be? Sarah Palin is trying to advocate something positive?
After all, this is the same woman who kills moose for political gain. On TV no less.
This is the same woman that used to sneak across the border to get Canadian Health Care. Of course now she claims to be a champion of free markets and a sworn enemy of socialized medicine.
This is the same woman that couldn't name a single newspaper or magazine she reads.
Enough? How about one more:
This is the same woman that invented the word "Refudiate" and when called on it compared herself to Shakespeare!
Sure enough, towards the end of the segment, Palin shows us her true colors. She launches into how America is penalizing the productive, how it is prejudiced against the job creators and the wealth owners instead of rewarding them, how Obama and Pelosi are eroding the work ethic of our children.
While I agree that there has been a significant amount of vitriol aimed at the private sector, at the wealthy, its not without good cause. After all, it was Hank Paulson, former Treasury Secretary and CEO of Goldman Sachs, that put a gun to the head of congress and extorted $700 billion dollars. Of course people are angry. Privatizing gains and socializing losses tends to have that effect.
Major economists like Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof, William Black and even Alan Greenspan all admit that moral hazard and fraud are the main problems and the economy cannot recover unless this fraud is prosecuted and the perpetrators are brought to justice. (hat tip to George Washington's Blog)
Palin, if she truly wanted to be a champion of the free market, would advocate the same thing. Alas, like her peers on the left, all she is after is the protection of her patrons. Here are the top 5 contributors to the 2008 McCain / Palin campaign:
Merrill Lynch$373,595
Citigroup Inc$322,051
Morgan Stanley$273,452
Goldman Sachs$230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co$228,107
That tells you all you need to know about Sarah Palin.
Wake up America. You're being robbed.
Following Dave's suggestion in his comment on this post, here are the top 7 contributors to Obama's campaign:
It's not different on the left side of the aisle is it?
Following Dave's suggestion in his comment on this post, here are the top 7 contributors to Obama's campaign:
| University of California | $1,591,395 |
| Goldman Sachs | $994,795 |
| Harvard University | $854,747 |
| Microsoft Corp | $833,617 |
| Google Inc | $803,436 |
| Citigroup Inc | $701,290 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $695,132 |
6 comments:
You should also post the top five contributors to Obama's campaign. The names would almost match as would the amounts.
Good idea. Done.
Thanks for the feedback!
What's up with JP Morgan and Citi contributing to both campaigns? Anticipation of their imminent collapse maybe?
Hedging their bets...It's clear they favor Obama though judging by the ratio of contributions on each side
I'm no Sarah Palin fan but her comments are fundamentally correct. One small nit to pick....she doesn't seem to understand that rising commodity prices are a result of QE. She seems to blame them as a cause of inflation, when in fact they ARE an effect of inflation. Perhaps she doesn't get it, but based on your column, it appears that you don't either. Palin is no more the problem than is any other politician. The solution is for readers to educate themselves at Mises.org and other places that present a coherent alternative to Keynesianism. Unfortunately, your column is just another Palin hit. Try harder next time to provide some real value. Palin hits are a dime a dozen.
Thanks for your feedback on this fledgling blog. I am not sure I understand your point.
From the post "While she is correct in saying an increase in the fiat money supply will (is) cause price inflation"
I am stating the same thing you are in your comment. Just in case I missed it, can you please be more specific?
Post a Comment