Economic Parables

Romney needs to call Obama's Bluffet....

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:25:00 +0000

By David Cowan

We know that the Bluffet rule is a motif for President’s class warfare, and more warning shots will be fired when Congress returns today from a two-week recess to a test vote on the rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on income over $1 million. The Bluffett tax targets wealthier Americans’ investments rather than salaries.

Today is the day when this issue of class warfare kicks off for November in earnest, now that we know it will be Romney for the GOP and Congress gets to have a say on the matter.

President Obama,who pays less tax than HIS secretary (he filed tax returns showing he paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent on income of about $800,000 in 2011) says the government needs the revenue from the Bluffett rule, estimated at $47 billion over 10 years, to cover “a broad range of goals.” He also says “This is not just about fairness.” Well, he got that right, it is very unfair, but not in the simplistic moralistic way he is peddling.

He says “Thisis also about growth. It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.” In other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Fact is, do we really need government to do the investing, and where does the investment go? Into government black holes and deep pockets, rather than into businesses which create wealth. The Bluffet tax would not create wealth, it would merely enhance dependency. We would see a better rate of return on the $47 billion in business investment by the wealthy than we would from government. That is an awful lot of liquidity to take out of the markets, and I don’t see too many secretaries taking up the slack.

Of course, keeper of the Treasury keys Tim Geithner was out pushing the rule on Sunday, “Just because Republicans oppose this does not mean it’s not the right thing to do and not the right thing to push for,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. Double negatives aside, we can say that just because Democrats think it is the right thing to do doesn’t mean it even begins to make sense.

If we look at the paying side of this, we see the rich targeted for this end up paying more. Simple. But for what are they paying? Increased revenue means increased expenditure, and so the things for government to spend on expands to meet the expanded revenue. More programs, more dependency and less reward for effort. What does the payer get in return? They get little benefit, and the wealthier they are the less they need what they are paying for.

Which means the sole purpose of the Bluffet rule is twofold, increased state powers and redistribution of wealth. Conservatives who attack Romney or the rich for their wealth are playing with the same deck as Obama.

Obama says,“If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do… Most Americans support this idea. We just need some Republican politicians to get on board with where the country is.” Of course, Obama doesn’t have to worry too much about his investments, because after leaving office, which cannot come soon enough, he will make a ton of cash for the remainder of his days. He doesn’t have too much to worry about…The rest of us do.

Politics IS a Contact Sport

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:40:00 +0000

So, Newt has launched an attack ad on Mitt, and no doubt the Democrats are watching with glee. There are no doubt worries that attack ads damage the Republican Party, just as many worry that American politics is too divisive. Does all the “infighting” damage Republican chances?

Well, no.

Attack ads are part of politics. Politics is divisive. This is because folks disagree, and they rightly disagree on important points of principle and policy. Of course the candidates attack each other, and why not? The prize is big; these are passionate people who feel they deserve a run at the number 1 job on the planet. Otherwise, they might as well play paper and scissors for the right to run.

Cast your mind back to 2008, and the exchange of “shame” accusations by candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

You can see her attack here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPV1yd7sQg&feature=share and Obama’s response here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkR9kw81Cx8&feature=share.You can also see the Obama attack ad, comparing Hilary Clinton to Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo, which is quite a laugh given that Democrats are the Orwellian nightmare party!

Both parties share the tactics of attack, and it goes a long way back. Hilary’s barb that Obama was following Karl Rove’s playbook was foolishness; it doesn’t take a village to work out that attacking the candidate, or in soccer parlance playing the man rather than the ball, goes back a lot further than Rove.

In fact, the earliest example of attack ads was launched by Lyndon B Johnson in 1964, in his attack on BarryGoldwater. Known as the “Daisy Spot”, it showed an innocent girl picking daisies followed by a countdown to nuclear catastrophe, which shocked audiences at the time. The idea was that Goldwater’s aggressive stance on the Cold War would lead to nuclear destruction. [You can view the ad here: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/media/daisyspot/] This will be the same Johnson who thought escalating Vietnam was a good idea.

Hilary and Obama attacked each other without pulling their punches. She lost, Obama won, and despite all the punches Hilary laid on Obama he won the White House. Like Hilary’s husband said in 2008, "This is a contact sport, politics. You can't complain about being attacked. It's like Yao Ming complaining about being fouled playing basketball."

The narrative that the attack by candidates is damaging is simply a way of attacking the Republicans, while President Obama as incumbent and the official nominee come September can stand serenely above the action and appear, well, presidential. That is, until his Republican opponent is selected and can turn his attention to attacking Obama’s record 100%.

For this reason ending the attacks is important, we need to see the main bout start. The chief result of Newt’s attacks on Mitt is to bring Mitt onto the canvas ready to land his punches. Newt’s attack ads are the last attempts to land some body blows on Mitt, but Mitt’s mitt appears to be the bigger and stronger of the two. Once the attacks are done, the choice is made, the Republican nominee can step onto the canvas and win the prize fight that will take him to the White House.

Bill Clinton was right, this is a contact sport. He was wrong to compare it to basketball though. This is a fight, and it is a fight to the end. Unlike Johnson’s Daisy ad the countdown is not to nuclear destruction, but losing to Obama will see more destruction of the American economy and the nation.

There Will Only Be One American Running In 2012

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:15:00 +0000

By David Cowan

There will only be one American running for president in 2012, and I am not talking about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

The 2012 election is in effect a Referendum on American Capitalism. If the Republicans choose Mitt Romney, as they surely must, he will represent American Capitalism. President Barack Obama will represent Europeanized State Capitalism. Go ahead America, make your choice.

President Obama wants the decision about who is too wealthy and who is not to be made by government. He wants a universal healthcare system. He wants a government-sponsored state capitalism to engineer poverty reduction. His “populist” agenda is nothing of the sort, it merely appeals to the lowest common denominator and will lead to European-style dependency and an entitlement culture.

What he doesn’t seem to want to do is create wealth. Who will create the wealth? His program can in no way be financed by the current parlous state of the nation’s finances, after all you can only print so much money and make so many promises. Look at the current state of Europe, do you want an America where states will be forced to bail out other failing states; a new republic of economic basketcases?

In President Obama’s “State of the Campaign” address, he sought to deflect from the campaign that on his watch there are now more than 13 million people out of work and the government debt stands at a record high of $15.2 trillion, up from $10.6 trillion when he took office. State? A complete mess!

Yet, conservatives in America have joined the baying OWS crowd in calling for equality, but in so doing they are asking the government to control the economy. There is a cultural shift which lies behind the attack on “big business”, “Wall Street” and “Fat cats.” This shift is best described as “resentment,”a well known emotion in Europe.

Whoever you support for the GOP nomination, the attack by conservatives on Romney's wealth is the most absurd aspect of the current debate. I always thought doing well was to be admired in America. There was a good piece by David Brooks in the New York Times recently, where he made the wise observation of Romney: He may have character flaws, but he does not have the character flaws normally associated with great wealth. His signature is focus and persistence.The wealth issue is a sideshow.

Indeed, it is a sideshow! Front row spectator, with a wide grin, is President Obama. Think on that my friends.

The practical outcome is that “big business” becomes state-owned business instead, as it is in China, Russia, and the Middle East. The free market if not reaching an end becomes state-controlled markets. Who will defend the world against this State Capitalism if America, the paragon of liberal Capitalism, does not?

President Obama, OWS, and conservative attacks on Mitt Romney are all part of weakening America’s ability to ensure free markets, but, hey, if that’s what you want America, it’s a free country…but not for much longer.

The issue at the heart of the 2012 election will be whether America wants to continue with American Capitalism, in spite of its flaws, or embrace the intellectually flawed and alien European style State Capitalism. Get it right folks, President Obama is not a Socialist, and Europe is not Socialist. Communism and Socialism have failed, and they have been replaced by coalitions of single issue groups and state power interests.

President Obama is a statist. Europe is statist. The economy is the tool of state power and control over our lives, not in the interest of the working classes, and certainly not the middle class, but in the interest of the elite statists who “know better”.

The Italian Marxist writer Antonio Gramschi stated: "The revolutionary forces have to take civil society before they take the state, and therefore have to build a coalition of oppositional groups united under a hegemonic banner which usurps the dominant or prevailing hegemony." What he argued was that leftists don’t need a revolution, they need to get their hands on the levers of power, which they have done in Europe for a number of decades...and now in the White House.

The constant whining “civil society” approach of Leftists is the tactic they use, and it is being used to usurp American Capitalism. President Obama has been reading Gramschi’s playbook, and conservatives are falling for it.

Just What onEarth is a Conservative?

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:30:00 +0000

By David Cowan

Iowa is upon us. 2012 is upon us. How will it all end? It may just all end in tears. Tears because Obama wins, or tears because the GOP did not offer a viable alternative. Whatever happens, one thing is for sure: this is a time to standup for conservative principles.

But, just what on earth is a conservative, and can one win the White House this year?

To answer this means agreement on just what a conservative is, and your answer to the second part of my question depends on the answer to the first part.

Simply put, Conservatism is a set of instincts and principles guiding decisions, which are applied accordingto historical context. Today’s conservative may discuss different situations and policy options then an 18th Century conservative, but then they will adhere to some broad principles as if there had been no intervening centuries. The conservative whom is central to American modern conservatism is Edmund Burke, and he spelled out some core conservative elements of thought:

(1) People are basically religious, and religion is the foundation of civil society. A divine sanction infuses the legitimate, existing, social order.

(2) Society is the natural, organic product of slow historical growth, with institutions drawing on the wisdom of previous generations.

(3) People are creatures of instinct and emotion as well as reason. Prudence, prejudice, experience, and habit are better guides than reason, logic, abstractions, and metaphysics. Truth exists not in universal propositions but in concrete experiences.

(4) The community is superior to the individual. Rights derive from duties. Evil isrooted in human nature, not in any particular social institutions.

(5) Apart from an ultimate moral sense, people are unequal. Social organization is a complex of classes, orders, and groups. Hence, differentiation, hierarchy and leadership are the inevitable characteristics of any civil society.

(6)A presumption exists "in favor of any settled scheme of government againstany untried project. “Man's hopes arehigh, but his vision is short.” Thus,efforts to remedy existing evils usually result in even greater ones.

We find echoes of these elements in the influential 1953 essay “The Conservative Mind”,where Russell Kirk offered what he called “six canons of conservative thought”. Like Burke, the divine plays a foundational role:

1. Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience

2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life

3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes

4. Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected and that economic leveling is not economic progress

5. Faith in prescription and distrust of “sophisters and calculators”

6. Recognition that change and reform are not identical

In 2012, how many of these foundational canons of thought are taught in our educational system? Again the answer is simple: none. What does happen is that these foundational principles are undermined and dismantled at every level of education and public life. To be a conservative is to swim against the cultural tide, against the consensus which is taught in schools and parlayed by the chattering media.

Winning a political election means appealing to the consensus, and today’s consensus is not tolerant of principles, or even thought for that matter. In today’s climate, a conservative cannot win the election. You can only look at the GOP field and vote for the consensus candidate, in other words the nearest thing to an electable conservative. This is not a ringing endorsement of Mitt Romney, but he is the only candidate who can compete with Obama.

But then in the grand scheme of things the presidential election is a mere sideshow, becausethe real battles lie ahead in establishing a new conservative agenda for an America systemically in doubt and unsure. The enlightenment trajectory of Europe, with its self-destructive repudiation of civilized principles, is the trajectory America is now following.

The answer is not to be found in this election, a new conservatism that tackles the causes of decline in enlightenment civilization is needed. A new Burke or Kirk is needed, because conservatives cannot simply look at Obama as the cause of America’s identity crisis, he is a symptom of the decay of the principles these thinkers set out so clearly.

Where is America's Fighting Spirit? Ending the Malaise Presidency

Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:00:00 +0000

These days it seems Captain America has been overpowered by MalaiseMan. President Obama is MalaiseMan. He told a fundraiser on Tuesday, October 25 that America is in decline, which is the central theme of his presidency. People are buying it too, which is what the Occupy Wall Street movement and Tea Party are symptoms of; they are two sides of a coin that says America is in decline. Where one is defeatist, the other is defiant.

This takes us back to the evening of July 15, 1979. Gas prices had skyrocketed, there were severe shortages and the endless economic decline seemed even longer than the line ups at gas stations. Carter preached, "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns."

We have heard similar malaise from President Obama. In fact, where Carter spent hours and days at Camp David in what Reagan biographer Steven Hayward tagged "the most remarkable exercise in presidential navel-gazing in American history" and delivered his message on malaise in minutes; President Obama decided in minutes and is spending his days and hours preaching malaise.

It is being believed on the streets. The Hill newspaper reports that over two-thirds of voters say the United States is declining, and the next generation will be worse off, with 83 percent of voters worried about the future of the nation.Their results conclude that Americans don’t view the country’s current economic and political troubles as temporary; they see this decline as stretching out for years.

President Obama’s policies tap into the malaise, which is why he has managed an economy of decline, failing on jobs, the deficit, healthcare, home foreclosures and rising gas prices.

However, there are signs of improvement. Economic growth in America picked up in the last quarter, showing signs of some recovery as the nation’s total output of goods and services grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent from July to September, almost double the 1.3 percent rate in the previous quarter.

This is because the economy has its own laws of gravity: what goes down will get backup again. The economy does this, not the government. We have become so risk averse we want the nanny state to kiss us better every time the economy hurts us. The President Obama re-election campaign is one of kissing everyone better, what is the Republican message?

Ronald Reagan defeated Carter by offering Americans a vision that was so optimistic it cancelled out Carter's pessimism. The economy will improve, and a Republican needs to get the message across that America will return to full strength with a gleam of defiance in its eye, not a tear of self-pity. Which candidate can do this? Which candidate can bring on Captain America to defeat MalaiseMan?

As a Christian, are you an Ambassador or a Politician?

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:20:00 +0000

Christians are involved in politics. For some this is a matter of controversy, while for others it is an essential part of how they understand discipleship. Many of us are excited by politics, and have allegiances to parties and policies. As individuals we should participate in the political process. But, what does this mean? What should guide us? What should church institutions do politically?

The problem for church institutions is they comprise people who are on both sides of the aisle and everywhere else in the political spectrum. However, in recent decades they have developed a habit in traditional churches of being hijacked by the latest Leftist ideas when it comes to economic issues. Take for instance this week. The Vatican called for “radical reform of the world's financial system” and “the creation of a global political authority to manage the economy”.

This is a position to take, albeit one I strongly disagree with, but I cannot see the Christian aspects of this. I do see the political and economic aspects. Underpinning this, to my mind foolish, plan for our economy is a set of flawed political and economic assumptions, but this has little to do with theology or faith - likewise my own ideas of what is needed. So, why is the Vatican proposing it?

It is proposing it because it has fallen victim to political fashion. This in part explains why traditional churches in the Western world are emptying. Folks get to hear heated arguments about political and economic policy, but faith aspects like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are optional.

How then should churches and believers participate in politics? This is a bigger question than can be answered in one small blog post, but at least I can propose an operating principle: 2 Corinthians 5:20.

Paul writes “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.”

An American ambassador to a foreign nation is chosen to represent the views and needs of the nation. The ideal ambassador is chosen as one capable of diplomacy, and one who embodies a good American. A politician, on the other hand, is someone who is a partisan, represents specific policies and engages an opposition.

Both ambassadors and politicians are important in our political process. An ambassador is to engage with those in other nations, other political systems and people who may offer different or rival values. A politician is someone who divides, and does not expect the opposition to understand, but is essential lubricant to the ongoing political process whatever side of the aisle.

Many churches, especially the traditional churches, have spent these last few decades being politicians rather than ambassadors. Too often they have split along political lines, offering a political view on issues relating to war, economic policy and public policy. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a sermon and a segment on Sunday morning television. These churches are failing because they have become too secular, and do not offer a unique voice or alternative to what everyone else is saying. They are just another voice in the crowded political marketplace.

Individual Christians can cross this line too, and forget the difference between their political views and what Christ commands. It is, after all, a difficult balance for us to manage sometimes. On occasion, Christians have been too quietist, like in Nazi Germany. On other occasions, Christians have been too involved, like in Latin American Marxist and liberation theology. These are obvious contrasts, but sometimes, perhaps most of the time, it is not so clear to us.

As we witness events in the global economy, the Middle East or the 2012 election, what should we be?

Paul tells us to be ambassadors. We may have our political views on solutions to problems,but we ought to share in our understanding of the cause. The cause of all conflict is separation from God, a humanity which is unreconciled. We are not going to help others to be reconciled through advocating political policy or by being politicians. Being political is dealing with symptoms rather than causes.

By being ambassadors we can be the means by which God makes His appeal to others, and in Christ we can implore others to be reconciled. Our first task then is to be ambassadors, not politicians.

Did you ever think to ask: Maybe God wants this economy?

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:10:00 +0000

This morning I looked out my kitchen window waiting for the kettle to boil water for my first coffee of the day. The house overlooks our small town, and it was shrouded in the most majestic mist. It looked so wonderful. In such moments you can only stand in awe at the beauty of creation.

This house, this view of nature was bought during the good times. Today is a struggle to stay here. It is so easy to forget the value of the things we have, and sometimes we need reminding.

How often are we too busy to stand in awe of nature? Too busy, appointments to make, things to do, a flight to catch. You know what it’s like. Times are good, money in the bank and the financial future looks secure. It’s easy to feel your human strength. It’s easy to forget God as well. When you’re out of a job, the bills aren’t being paid or you’re wondering if you’re on the economic scrapheap, God seems the only one prepared to listen.

Bad times are a reason to reflect on what we have and where we are in life. If we’re out of a job then we examine how we got there. If we have a job then we wonder for how long. We all hope in expectation of an improving economy.

It is crisis time. A double-dip recession, the Tea Party,Occupy Wall Street and daily doses of economic gloom remind us of the limitations of the economy. It is a tool, not the outcome. The economy reflects the society we are and what we want. If we look at the economy we can learn about ourselves and what is important.

Maybe, just maybe then, God wants this economy. There is an opportunity for us to examine our life and our nation to see if we are living right. Crisis is cathartic, and we can benefit from these trying times as individuals and as nations. The economy will improve, no doubt about that, but will we change?

If we look back to the cross then we have to see both the suffering and the promise of redemption. How can our suffering, in this economy, compare to that hill? We may feel we are in the depths, but our economic suffering is as naught compared to the cross, and redemption is beyond our making, it is freely offered to us. Now there’s a bargain in this economy!

Maybe we should start an Occupy Hollywood Movement? Bring your own Red Carpet!

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:40:00 +0000

I live in hope that the age of vacuous celebrity will end soon, but until it does we have to put up with a tsunami of trivialization emanating from the mouths of people who are best left to reading a script and playing at being intelligent rather than trying to convince us they are. Off script and undirected they have a tendency to talk complete and utter nonsense, as the late plumber Thomas Crapper used to say.

The latest excuse for flushing out the views of celebrities is the Tea Party. Here's the all too predictable script they follow:

FADE IN

CUT TO: Gut-wrenching liberal angst

Sean Penn told Piers Morgan on CNN the Tea Party would like to "lynch" President Obama

CUT TO: furrowed brow of indignant concern

Then Morgan Freeman said the Tea Party wants to “get the black man out”, and then…

CUT TO: scantily-cladwoman with puzzled look

Eva Longoria said it is “very dangerous because it’s not the character of America.”

CUT TO: group shot of well-dressed but obviously and deeply troubled poseurs

Add to this a whole bunch of other renta-mouths with money who tell us the Tea Party is a"racist" group, including Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Janeane Garofalo and Jon Stewart.

CUT TO: A happy smiling banker

Meanwhile, the Occupy Wall Street crowd attracts the praise of some of America’s richest celebrities, and celebritynetworth.com has done us the great service of naming the richest top 10:

#1 Yoko Ono NetWorth - $500 million.

#2 RussellSimmons Net Worth - $325 million

#3 Roseanne Barr Net Worth - $80 million

#4 Deepak Chopra Net Worth - $80 million

#5 Kanye West Net Worth - $70 million

#6 Alec Baldwin Net Worth - $65 million

#7 SusanSarandon Net Worth - $50 million

#8 Michael Moore Net Worth - $50 million

#9 Tim Robbins Net Worth - $50 million

#10 Nancy Pelosi Net Worth - $35.5 million

So, why don’t we form a movement to occupy Hollywood?

FADE OUT: Hopefully celebrity will soon!

Now, wouldn't it be great if the right people were celebrated instead?

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/10-richest-celebrities-supporting-occupy-wall-street/:

White House Meets the Keystone Kops in Solyndra-vision!

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:35:00 +0000

The liberal media is upset. It is upset because they feel, and boy do they know how to feel, that the Solyndra coverage is out of proportion to its significance. From HuffPo to The Nation, coast to coast, they have offered a swathe of articles and editorials about the inequity of it all.

Their latest wheeze is to say what about Keystone? I don’t mean Kops, well, actually I do mean Kops.

What about the Keystone Kops behavior of government interference in business, all for ideological reasons? Funny that.

Federal money was used because the company didn’t have the money, which is just the kind of thing businesses are supposed to have. Funny that.

Solyndra received $535 million in federal loan guarantees. Then it went bankrupt and was raided by the FBI. Funny that.

Reporters covering the House investigation of the Solyndra debacle get called regularly by Democratic staff and environmentalists criticizing them for daring to file copy on the story. Funny that.

President Obama was warned that a 2010 visit to the company to promote its Green Prowess could backfire, but he went ahead anyhow. Funny that.

The worry amongst liberals is that all these negative stories about government assistance to solar power will drive away future investments and congressional pork for years to come. Funny that.

Reality is that Solyndra was bad business, and what it traded in was bad business because it was ideological not commercial.

Yet, the solar energy con business goes on. If anything is out of proportion it is the attention given to so-called green businesses. The solar business is now a $6 billion industry, up 300% from 2006, and so-called “green jobs” expanded by 6.8% in the past year, that is almost 10 times faster than the economy as a whole.How much of this is as toxic as Solyndra?

President Obama dismissedSolyndra as a "bad bet." Whatever name you give it, it ain’t so funny.

How to solve our economic woes? Start by saying it ain't so Joe!

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:05:00 +0000

Got a medical problem, go to the doctor.

Got a pastoral problem, go to your pastor

Got an economic problem, go to your wealth creators.

Simple really, ain't it? This is how we solve our economic woes, and we got to tell the politicians and the protesters that what they say ain’t so!

Reading all the doom and gloom in the media and listeningto the chattering classes you’d think we are facing an economic Armageddon. So to cheer you all up, I can commend some reading to suggest things are truly better than they seem, and refute the economic trash filling the airwaves.

Let me taking you into my virtual doctor’s waiting room and share some literature with you. Specifically, I am heartened by four reports I read this morning.

The first is about the Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro, who states America currently has the “most anti-business administration in my lifetime.”

This is good, because after the protests on Wall Street and elsewhere it is about time the business leaders started speaking up and defending what they do, and go on the attack instead. Business will create wealth and this is the only thing that will get the economy moving.

The second piece is by Thomas Sowell, who writes “Like so many people, in so many countries, who started out to"spread the wealth," Barack Obama has ended up spreading poverty.”

This is good, because those of us who defend Capitalism do so on the basis that it creates wealth, and has done more to lift humanity out of poverty in the last 250 years or so than any other form of economic management. It’s not perfect, but it is the best we got. It’s not perfect, because people are not perfect.

The third piece is in the Dealbook pages of the New YorkTimes, where Timothy J. Sloan, Wells Fargo’s chief financial officer, said in an interview, “The narrative that banks aren’t lending is incorrect,” “Lending is strong, and based on what we’re seeing,” he added, it will “continue togrow.”

This is good, because it highlights what I argued in blogs these past few days that the real economic issue is the talking down of the economy. As Sloan adds poignantly, "New lending numbers suggest that while the economy remains extremely fragile, the confidence of consumers and businesses may be more resilient than many experts had believed."

Last, but by no means least, is a piece by Robert Higgs in which he writes, "A major factor behind the weak recovery and gloomy outlook is a climate of policy-induced economic uncertainty. An index we devised . . . shows U.S. policy uncertainty at historically high levels." Higgs is expanding on work he did back in 1997 about economic policy and regime change.

This is good, because it chimes with my argument that the double-dip recession we are experiencing coincides with the double-dip electioneering of Candidate and President Obama.

It is time for the defenders of Capitalism to make these points and beat down the defeatists who parade in the streets or keep whining on TV.

I commend these articles for you, and in order of appearance in this article they can be found at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/17/consumer-electronics-chief-says-obama-regulators-l/

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/10/18/random_thoughts

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/banks-start-to-make-more-loans/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

http://biggovernment.com/rhiggs/2011/10/12/important-new-evidence-on-regime-uncertainty-and-government-failure/