Name the Naked Author

is being hosted by Monsignor Robert (Bob) Belvedere this week, with a bit of a lemon/lime twist.

Bob asks a few key questions and the Reaganite Republican is ready Freddy with the answer.

Don’t blame me if the RR link doesn’t divulge the information immediately.

As a matter of fact, don’t even go there unless you hit Bob’s site first, or forever be labeled a cheater…

What!? You did?

I bet you don’t mind spoiling the end of a movie for the rest of us do you?

Liberal!

Socialist!

Zombie!

You should be ashamed, but I know you have none.

UPDATE: And the winner is… Adrienne of Adrienne’s Corner and Red of Caught Him With A Corndog (who cheated off Adrienne). For both “guessing” the name of our esteemed author as Thomas Sowell. Another one of many profound men of color who understand what is happening in this country and are not afraid to speak out against it. Mr. Sowell is a syndicated author who’s articles are printed in many different magazines and online journals but I found this one through the Patriot Post, which offers a free subscription and shares a wealth of knowledge to anyone possessing the desire to learn.

Now, Adrienne has asked for a reward of some kind. Specifically, she said:

I want a priiizzzzze

Something shiny would be nice…

Usually, I don’t hand out rewards for this sort of thing but, since you screamed about it..

After an exhaustive search around the Robo-basement, I’ve dug something out of the jewelry box that may suit you, or Flavor Flav. I’m not sure. There is only one, but Adrienne and Red, I’m sure you can share, a joint custody of sorts. Work out the details between you. You are hereby awarded…

the Robo-Bling.

Name the Naked Author Prize - AKA: Robo-Bling!

Congratulations. I think.

Begin original post===============================

You know, I’m swamped with work right now so lets play another Name the Naked Author game! This week, our commentator takes on the question of our economy and why, with so much money being printed, the inflation level hasn’t risen. I was curious of that myself.

As usual, no Google and leave your guess in the comments. I’ll announce the name Saturday.

Read on:

If you could spend vast amounts of other people’s money just by saying a few magic words, wouldn’t you be tempted to do it? Barack Obama has spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money just by using the magic words “stimulus” and “jobs.”

It doesn’t matter politically that the stimulus is not actually stimulating and that the unemployment rate remains up near double-digit levels, despite all the spending and all the rhetoric about jobs. And of course nothing negative will ever matter to those who are part of the Obama cult, including many in the media.

But, for the rest of us, there is a lot to think about in the economic disaster that we are in.

Not only has all the runaway spending and rapid escalation of the deficit to record levels failed to make any real headway in reducing unemployment, all this money pumped into the economy has also failed to produce inflation. The latter is a good thing in itself but its implications are sobering.

How can you pour trillions of dollars into the economy and not even see the price level go up significantly? Economists have long known that it is not just the amount of money, but also the speed with which it circulates, that affects the price level.

Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that the velocity of circulation of money in the American economy has plummeted to its lowest level in half a century. Money that people don’t spend does not cause inflation. It also does not stimulate the economy.

The current issue of Bloomberg Businessweek has a feature article about businesses that are just holding on to huge sums of money. They say, for example, that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer is holding on to $26 billion. If so, there should not be any great mystery as to why they don’t invest it.

With the Obama administration being on an anti-business kick, boasting of putting their foot on some business’ neck, and the president talking about putting his foot on another part of the anatomy, with Congress coming up with more and more red tape, more mandates and more heavy-handed interventions in businesses, would you risk $26 billion that you might not even be able to get back, much less make any money on the deal?

Pfizer is not unique. Banks have cut back on lending, despite all the billions of dollars that were dumped into them in the name of “stimulus.” Consumers have also cut back on spending.

For the first time, more gold is being bought as an investment to be held as a hedge against a currently non-existent inflation than is being bought by the makers of jewelry. There may not be any inflation now, but eventually that money is going to start moving, and so will the price level.

Despite a big decline in the amount of gold used to make jewelry, the demand for gold as an investment has risen so steeply as to more than make up for the reduced demand for gold jewelry, and has in fact pushed the price of gold to record high levels.

What does all this say? That people don’t know what to expect next from this administration, which seldom lets a month go by without some new anti-business laws, policies or rhetoric.

When you hire somebody in this environment, you know what you have agreed to pay them and what additional costs there may be for their health insurance or other benefits. But you have no way of knowing what additional costs the politicians in Washington are going to impose, when they are constantly coming up with new bright ideas for imposing more mandates on business.

One of the little noticed signs of what is going on has been the increase in the employment of temporary workers. Businesses have been increasingly meeting their need for labor by hiring temporary workers and working their existing employees overtime, instead of hiring new people.

Why? Because temporary workers usually don’t get health insurance or other benefits, and working existing employees overtime doesn’t add to the cost of their benefits.

There is no free lunch — and the biggest price of all is paid by people who are unemployed because politicians cannot leave the economy alone to recover, as the American economy has repeatedly recovered faster when left alone than when politicians decided that they have to “do something.”

UPDATE: The correct answer to this installment of our author trivia contest is…. Walter Williams and was nailed early on by Obi’s Sister. Jedi Princess, the force is indeed with you. Thanks to all for playing along!

Begin original post——

I’ve found a worthy writer and it’s time once again to play Name the Naked Author! This time, if you know the author’s name, go ahead and share it. No harm done because I will not declare the correct answer until Saturday.

Be sure to check out the highlighted text from James Madison at the beginning. I wonder if  Woodrow Wilson and FDR were privy to that little piece of enlightenment. I don’t have to wonder on the bunch inhabiting the brothel at the moment. They wouldn’t have paid attention.

As last time, leave your answer in the comments and remember the honor system. (No Google). After all, we’re not liberals.

Good Luck!

The celebration of our founders’ 1776 revolt against King George III and the English Parliament is over. Let’s reflect how the founders might judge today’s Americans and how today’s Americans might judge them.

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” He later added, “(T)he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Two hundred years later, at least two-thirds of a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget is spent on charity or “objects of benevolence.”

What would the founders think about our respect for democracy and majority rule? Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said: “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” John Adams advised, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” The founders envisioned a republican form of government, but as Benjamin Franklin warned, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

What would the founders think about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision where the court sanctioned the taking of private property of one American to hand over to another American? John Adams explained: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

Thomas Jefferson counseled us not to worship the U.S. Supreme Court: “(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

How might our founders have commented about last week’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding our rights to keep and bear arms? Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, said, “Individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment.” The founders would have responded “Balderdash!” Jefferson said, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

George Mason explained, “(T)o disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Noah Webster elaborated: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. … The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

Contrary to Alito’s assertion, the central component of the Second Amendment is to protect ourselves from U.S. Congress, not street thugs.

Today’s Americans have contempt for our founders’ vision. I’m sure our founders would have contempt for ours.

Ten-Gallon Hat Tip to Keith-the-ineligible

UPDATE II: And the author is… Ron Paul, who was named within a nano-second by The CL of The Classic Liberal, who’s comment languished in “pending” mode until now. Sorry CL, I know that was painful, but I didn’t want to cloud the issue with any facts, besides, once you see it, it’s obvious. Thanks for being a good sport.

Congressman Paul was quoted from his April 27, 2010 article entitled Socialism vs. Corporatism as published on the Campaign for Liberty Website, and many others I’m sure.

The CL’s quick response leads me to think that he may be a subscriber to the Robot’s postings. What a great idea! Those interested can subscribe by entering their email at the box in the upper right column. I promise, your info is safe with me.

There were some good guesses by all, and one other correct answer by someone who’s handle I can only describe as a stock number, 1911A1, who BTW would have received a link back if they had provided a web address.

Thanks to all the participants!

Chris Wysocki, Jeffrey Ellis, Courtney, Red, Reaganite Republican,  and JB.

Thanks also to Motor City Times for linking to the post!

I’ll try to make the next one a little more challenging.

UPDATE I: The identity of our writer was nailed by a blogger friend within the first hour of this post. I hid his comment so it wouldn’t influence any true guesses, and because I had a strong suspicion that this particular blogger absolutely knew the name of the author. I would reveal the name of said blogger but I fear even that bit of info would be a huge clue to our writer’s identity. *gasp* Censorship!

There have been some good attempts, and some comments by newcomers to the site claiming to know the answer. (Welcome and thanks for stopping in!)

Today I’m lifting the moratorium so, if you know who it is, then speak up. I’ll be revealing the name of our essayist in the morning along with the blogger’s name who chimed in so, if you think you know the answer, today’s the day to prove it.

Thanks for playing!

——————————————————————————————

Alright, you brainiacks, let’s play a game called  “Name the Naked Author”

Here’s the set-up:

I’ll post an article,and you guess who wrote it. Simple,  but we’re on the honor system here. No search engines. You must guess. No clues to start with, and another thing, if you know the answer, give it a day or a few, please, ’twill be more fun with true guesses, me-thinks. And this works for me too, cause I get to try to stump your happy, intelligent, asses. Mwaahahahahahaha… ha ha   ha      ha        ha         *cough*            ahem

Here ’tis…

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings.  I differ with this characterization.  This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means.  On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market.  But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist.  This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government.  In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist.  For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine.  It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges”.  Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama’s “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.”  This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration.  It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands.  Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist.  We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion.  Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place.  Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.

Speculate in the comments…

Site Meter
Twitter
Categories
Larwyns Links
Bad Blue
Subscribe via email
November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930