Fiatch

Guest: “We’ve just been Cheneyed by a guy named Barack Obama who said he’d never do this… Every line was crossed….”

Host: “He’s such a charming liar, though.”

via Robert Murphy’s “Principled Leftists Realizing that Bush + Eloquence = Obama”

The grand bipartisan project — centralize vast federal power over everything — continues, but the going is thankfully getting tougher for the corrupt and corrupting:

Guest: What if the people out there screaming and breaking up the discussion at town meetings are correct?  What if we have a situation in which you have secret meetings being held by the President — the absolute fascist nightmare — because fascism is defined as government combining with corporate powers to impose their profit-making regime on you.

What if, indeed.

I keep asking:

• What builds trust?  What destroys it?
• What store of value is safe?
• What if the ideas of the Austrian economists are correct?
• What happens next?  What most concentrates power?
• Why do we still pretend?
• What are you willing to do with your voice?

The answers to these questions take shape as individuals act and events unfold.  I find it significant, and perhaps a little hopeful, that tiny signs are emerging from both the right and left (so-called) that folks are realizing that:

1. The ongoing, damaging, dangerous power grab has nothing to do Republican versus Democrat because both parties are on board.
2. The current regime is a corporatist, fascist nightmare.  This federal power grab does not represent capitalism.
3. It is time for each individual to wake up, engage, learn, and take action with a healthy distrust if not disregard for lying politicians and their media proxies.

Not all is lost.

Cato asks “Cash for Clunkers: Dumbest Program Ever?” and answers:

Farm subsidies are unjust. Trade restrictions are counter-productive. Energy regulations have done great damage. Housing policies helped cause the financial crisis. But for pure dumbness, Cash for Clunkers takes the cake.

How folks respond to this crisis reveals who understands and values markets and liberty and who does not.  Centralized command is a horrible way to (mis)manage health care, automobiles, housing, banking, agriculture, and on and on.  Centralized command is not safe for work.

[photo source]

All this “death panel” talk strikes me as side-show theater.  Regardless, I am surprised that so many Americans seem to want to insert the federal government between themselves and the health-care system.  It’s naive and likely hazardous to your health.

The proliferation of czars across the federal government symbolizes the fatal conceit that has taken hold.

Katherine Mangu-Ward writes in “The Lure of the Czars:”

President Barack Obama is taking the practice of naming czars to new heights. As Foreign Policy points out, with the selection of “border czar” Alan Bersin, the Obama administration surpassed the Romanovs in its production of czars. It took those old Russkies 300 years to produce 18 czars. It took Obama less than 100 days.

The czar is a perfect techocratic role—appealing to Obama, who has been much praised for “surrounding himself with smart people.” The appeal of the czar rests on the belief that if we could just figure out the right smart, competent, well-intentioned person to put charge, everything would go more smoothly.

Would you believe we now have a TARP Czar, a Stimulus Czar, and a Car Czar?  We do.

This czarist approach is both conceited and futile.  It will necessarily underperform markets.  Free enterprise simply, clearly does a better job.

It is amazing that our officials idolize the czar position.  It is even more startling that American citizens tolerate such arrogant, expensive folly.

Of course, it must feel intoxicating to become a czar.  Note the full title of Russian sovereign rulers:

“…according to the article 59 of the Russian Constitution of April 23, 1906, ‘the full title of His Imperial Majesty is as follows: We, ——— by the grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Chersonesos, Tsar of Georgia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Samogitia, Belostok, Karelia, Tver, Yugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Nizhni Novgorod, Sovereign of Chernigov, Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Beloozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl, and all northern territories; Sovereign of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories - hereditary Lord and Ruler of the Circassians and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Oldenburg, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth.’”

Now read about US Auto Czar Ron Bloom who:

according to his not being embroiled in a state-pension-kickback scandal like his predecessor and despite his union ties; by the grace of President Obama, Regulator and Technocrat of all the Automakers, of General Motors, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Tsar of Chrysler, Tsar of Dodge, Tsar of Jeep, Tsar of Ford, Tsar of Pontiac, Tsar of Hummer, Lord of GMC, and Grand Duke of Autoparts Makers Visteon, Delphi, Williams Controls, AutoZone, and PepBoys, Prince of CarMax, Penske, AutoNation and Advance Auto Parts, US Auto Parts, O’Reilly, Pick-Ups Plus, and other Auto-Parts Retailers; Lord and Grand Duke of Genuine Parts Company, Sovereign of LKQ Corporation, The Coast Distribution System, and All Wholesale Auto-Parts Distributors; Sovereign of Conrad Industries, Harley-Davidson, and the Michigan lands and union territories - Heir of Hoffa, Duke of Washington, D.C., Ohio, Indiana, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth.

It is also worth noting that the Obama administration placed a 31-year-old Yale Law School student with no auto industry experience in charge of restructuring GM.  Reportedly, he is a very smart guy.

These arrogant officials should get over themselves and get out of the way.  Entrepreneurship is hope and change that yields an open tomorrow.  Centralized power is an old, sad, terrible road that leads to a dead end.

And so, forth.

[image source]

Also add:

• Brooks Brothers Brigade!
• Hijacker!
• Racist!
• Terrorist!

These rolling ad-hominem attacks confess intellectual weakness.  These officials and their media proxies are afraid.

They should not fear their fellow citizens.  It is, though, appropriate for them to wonder if perhaps all this attention threatens their boondoggling and bad ideas.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of conscience to remain silent.”

We are well past the foothold stage.  What are you prepared to do with your voice?

[source: Nate Beeler’s “In Defense of Dissent on Health Care Reform” via Washington Examiner, HT Instapundit]

Congressman David Scott’s high-profile fail yesterday is but the tip of an iceberg.  These officials are only beginning to feel the strain.  They are, by design, setting themselves (and us) up for inevitable, ceaseless FAIL.

His response is almost understandable.  Given that government cannot fairly (so-called) allocate scarce resources across the entire health-care system, of course it would make his life easier to:

• shout people down;
• loudly proclaim his own position of power;
• hide behind bureaucracy to disguise accountability;
• attack the decency of anyone who dares to disagree;
• falsely imply openness and benevolence while actually embodying their opposites;
• deny the legitimacy of opposition by counting only those who agree with him as constituents; and
• avoid answering the press.

The Fatal Conceit is real and unavoidable.  This tiny group of government bureaucrats cannot possibly hope to manage the health-care economy.  Clearly, some things that should not have been forgotten were lost.  They are going to fail, and it is going to hurt.

Also understand — health-care reform characterized by market allocation instead of central command would bring many benefits.  Within such an effort, there would naturally be many failures.  Competition and free trade, though, would sift among alternatives to uncover successes, further innovations, and yield progress.

That’s how it works.

I admit this video made me laugh a little.  This series of botched misdirections shows the desperate situation faced by members of Congress confronted by calm, logical, yet unrelenting citizens.

US Representative David Scott (D, GA) failed all over the place.  It started with a simple question about his health-care-reform intentions, and it all fell apart for him as follows:

Fail #1: Constituency

US Rep. David Scott:

“I am listening to MY constituents.  These are people who LIVE in the 13th Congressional District, who VOTE in this district, and THAT’S who I’ve got to respond to…”

Scott’s Fail:

Crowd: [indistinct] informing their Congressman that they are from his district.

Reporter: “We caught up with Dr. Brian Hill, the doctor who asked about health care.  It turns out, he is one of Scott’s constituents.”

Dr. Hill: “I did not go to a meeting to create any problems.  I went to the meeting to literally ask a question that I thought was very, very important for my patients.”

His “Constituency” ploy having failed immediately, Rep. Scott then tried to duck under the agenda of the meeting, which leads to:

Fail #2: Agenda

Rep. Scott:

“Those of you who are here who have taken and came and HIJACKED this event…This IS NOT A HEALTH CARE EVENT! You made the choice to come here!”

Scott’s Fail:

Reporter: “The meeting was primarily about a highway project, but later it was opened up for any questions from the crowd.  Hill was one of two people who got to ask about health care.”

His Agenda ploy exposed as an obvious false front, Rep. Scott next attacked the decency of these “hijackers,” which produced:

Fail # 3: Personal Attack

Rep. Scott:

“Not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAD THE DECENCY to call my office and set up for a meeting.  Ok. Then DO THAT!  DO THAT!  But don’t DON’T  come and take advantage of what these individuals have done.  You want a meeting with me on health care?  I’ll GIVE it to you!”

Scott’s Fail:

Reporter: “Dr. Hill says he has called Scott’s office, several times.”

Dr. Hill: “I’ve asked, ‘Is he going to be having any health-care forums? Is he going to have an area where we can address his thoughts and express our ideas and our thoughts as well?’ and I was told, ‘No,’ and that’s why I said to myself, I then need to go to an area where I’ve got access to him.  We depend on our Congressman to do what’s right for us, and I just don’t see that happening.”

The report closes with:

Fail # 4: No comment

Reporter: “By the way, Congressman David Scott, we asked, and he refuses to comment about what happened.”

What builds trust?  What destroys it?

HT Instapundit

Listen to “The Canadian Health Care Experience” with Sally Pipes.

Health-care reform under President Obama will bring painful taxes, rationing of care, misallocation of resources, and diminished outcomes throughout the system primarily because it will also transfer yet more power to a central federal authority.

The good news is bad ideas such as these, if enacted, cannot remain in effect for long without eroding liberty and harming economy.  Maybe folks will notice, eventually.

“Many health-care reformers want to pattern reform after Medicare, a program riddled with waste that will take tens of trillions of dollars from taxpayers in the coming decades.”

“What’s not to love?”

Listen to “Medicare: A Model for Reform?”

President Obama has opened a Snitch Line.

What builds trust?  What destroys it?  What happens next?  What are you prepared to do?

Entrepreneurship is hope and change that yields an open tomorrow.  Centralized power is an old, sad, terrible road that leads to a dead end.

Please read “F. A. Hayek and the Fatal Conceit of [President] Barack Obama:”

BY STEVEN HORWITZ

The headlines blare that President Obama will “restructure the financial services industry” and “fix the health care crisis.” A 31-year-old with no experience in the business world, but a lot of experience in politics, has been put in charge of dismantling General Motors.

Members of Congress lecture car manufacturers and mortgage lenders on how to do their jobs. Politicians keep taking on more and more responsibility for the U.S. economy, as each industry appears to be getting its own “czar.” Unfortunately, more czars will not produce better cars, or health care, or mortgages, or much of anything else.

The belief that one person or group, no matter how smart, can know how best to allocate resources is a classic example of what the Nobel Laureate economist F. A. Hayek called “the fatal conceit.”

In Hayek’s view, what enables businesspeople to make good decisions about the allocation of resources is not that they are smarter than other people. Instead, two other factors are key.

First, businesspeople have very detailed knowledge of their particular corners of the world. They know where resources are, where their customers are and what they want, and have the experience of knowing how to deliver it. This is not about being “smarter,” but about having local and contextual knowledge that others don’t have.

Second, entrepreneurs develop this knowledge by making use of the signals provided by prices, profits, and losses. Prices guide entrepreneurial decision-making by enabling them to formulate budgets and estimate the profitability of the various choices they might make.

Profits and losses provide information after the fact about how well they chose. Profits signal them to continue, while losses tell them that resources need to be reallocated. By acting on the basis of that information, each entrepreneur contributes to the overall improved allocation of resources.

The lesson from Hayek is that when the rules are right, markets are collectively much smarter than any individual or group within them. This is the lesson that the Obama administration has utterly missed.

The administration evidently believes that experience in policymaking is an effective substitute for the local and contextual knowledge of how to produce goods and services. This is a complete misunderstanding of the way in which markets work and what kinds of knowledge matter.

Much of the same is true with Obama’s supposed fixes for health care and financial services. Imposing a vision of how an industry “should” work and how it should produce and deliver its products from the top down is the height of political hubris.

The conceit behind it is one that dates back to the earliest visions of socialist central planning. Even as belief in that more comprehensive vision has died, the mindset behind it is still manifested in the belief that top-down fixes driven by well-meaning political actors are more rational than letting individuals with their local knowledge coordinate and cooperate via markets.

When politicians such as Barney Frank lecture financial executives on their lending practices, they too are guilty of the sort of hubris Hayek identifies.

How they know better what it takes to run a business is not at all clear, especially since many of them have never done so. This sort of second-guessing of business inevitably gets politicized as there is no other basis for decision-making by politicians who are ignorant of the detailed, contextual knowledge on which effective entrepreneurship relies.

Absent the signals of the marketplace, czars, presidents, and members of Congress are thrashing around in the dark in their attempts to improve upon the outcomes generated in actual markets. Top-down directives forgo the opportunity to learn from the decentralized knowledge of those actually producing the goods and services in question.

Obama’s reliance on experts and czars and top-down restructuring is particularly ironic in light of his promises of change and bringing the spirit of 21st century technology to government.

The clearest lesson of the networked world is that decentralized, bottom-up collaboration works much more effectively than top-down solutions. From Wikipedia, to open source software, to the Internet itself, the 21st century is quickly becoming the century of the “wisdom of crowds.”

Young people understand how contributing their own contextual knowledge to aggregating and signaling processes on the Web make all of us more effective users of information through shared knowledge. Whatever its flaws, Wikipedia could never be written by an Information Czar or Task Force.

Hayek recognized decades ago that markets work in precisely the same way. To think otherwise would be to suffer from the fatal conceit. Czars and second-guessing politicians with grand designs will only frustrate the much more effective decentralized processes of the market.

Even as they communicate constantly through the Internet, probably using open source software in the process, Obama and his administration, in their hubris, continue to believe that industries need czars and that individuals and committees are smarter than collaborating, distributed collectives. We can only hope that conceit will not be as fatal as Hayek feared.

ABC 20/20 takes on health care reform.  This is no joke.

HT to Robert Wenzel

With Jamie Dimon becoming poster boy for the James-Taggart type of banker, where is our Midas Mulligan?

See also “President Obama’s Favorite Banker” via Robert Wenzel.

[photo source]