Wednesday, February 18, 2009

What Is The World Coming To?

I never anticipated this of Vladmir Putin, a man for whom my admiration is . . . shall we say quite limited, but he has said something that I would never expect a Russian leader to say and I hope the American people hear it and take it to heart.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

Now if Putin would just take his own advice.

14 Comments:

Blogger Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

He's old-school KGB. If those walls could talk! I wouldn't trust anything he says.

11:12 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

I note that the present administration here in America is determined to put as much as possible in the hands of the state.

Rahm Emanuel spoke about how a crisis is an opportunity which can be used by the government. Quite revealing. The video is HERE. Worth a watch.

6:31 AM  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

I am skeptical of Putin making any statement reflecting poorly on any portion of Soviet history.

BZ

9:22 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

--------------------------

Nope, although I don't quite know what "Unjustified" means in this context. I take it to mean any deficit spending.

If the government spends money on projects that promote growth then they have made a sound investment. There aren't any private entities out there who are going to build the proposed high speed rail project.
However, it would upgrade our transport and eliminate some of the gridlock on highways and airport and contribute to an efficient infrastructure that can benefit commerce and quite a few corporations.

So why throw a tantrum because it's government money. Is the high speed rail any less useful for being built by the government?

2:12 PM  
Blogger Chuck said...

I'm a little unsure as to how many times socialism must be shown to be a failed experiment before the retards on the left will stop believing in it.

10:20 PM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

A well-educated, healthy population and an efficient modern infrastructure are the foundation for private sector wealth.

Okay? With me so far?

Without these things it's hard to see how the private economy ever truly recovers.

Is that controversial?

People have lots and lots of stuff, all the gadgets they can use for a while and a serious case of consumption fatigue.

Okay?

What they don't have are the important necessities that have been neglected for so long. Those are at least partially a function of the state.

10:39 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

Chuck, once again before you start calling people retards.

Keynesian deficit spending is not socialism.

Now, learn some basic economics and political science before you go off. I would enjoy having a rational discussion with the right but you are so ignorant that it's difficult.

10:41 AM  
Blogger Debbies Choice said...

Obama is in way over his head. He actually has no idea on what to do about anything. And the people around him (Eric Holder and the rat pack) are all in the same boat.
They all are a bunch of Doom, gloom and guilt people rather than what they sould be. They offer NO confidence to the country at all. As a leader, Barack Obama is proving to be the carrier, not the cure. I'm sure that none of us are in the least bit suprised!

11:15 AM  
Blogger Donald Douglas said...

Nice posting, Shoprat. I've noted a few times at my blog how Putin exploiting "Great Russian Nationalism" as well as patriotic revisionism of the Stalinist legacy.

This talk about state control of the economy is right in line with that. Note how it the variations of this jabber depend on how high the price is for a current barrel of oil.

Interesting.

12:01 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

Ducky's here: "...important necessities that have been neglected for so long. Those are at least partially a function of the state."

The function of SOME states...not this one.

There are six roles of our government: 1. To unite us; 2. To make us equal under the law; 3. To Insure peace in our country; 4. To defend our nation from attack; 5. To promote the general welfare of our people and 6. To secure the blessings of liberty to us and our children (see the preamble to the United States Constitution).

President BO is busy usurping numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. (By some interpretations, 5 as well.)

The Constitution specifically and deliberately limits the powers of government (which President BO has stated that he disagrees with).

It was designed by its writers to tell us what government CANNOT do, not what it can do.

And that has historically been the basis for the strength of The United States of America.

In other words, "Government, keep you hand out of places they don't belong!"

11:23 AM  
Blogger Chuck said...

Duck, based on Obama's statements "spreading the wealth" etc, I stand by both of my words socialism and retarded.

8:44 AM  
Blogger Z said...

Boy, who ever thought an American government would have to be reminded by Russia about 'the spirit of free enterprise'.

THAT's how bad it is here now, folks. That's pretty darned bad.

whew

10:38 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

Here's a suggestion for Joe:
The Case for Big Government
by Jeff Madrick
Princeton University Press

Does a pretty good job of explaining why your point of view doesn't even hold water in the late eighteenth century in America.

Government has always been critical in America developing the projects that private corporations either couldn't manage or couldn't make immediately profitable. High cost/low profit projects especially.

Read up on the history of the railroads if you still think that could have been built without the state.

Your little Libertarian aphorisms aren't going to stand against well written history.

2:06 PM  
Blogger shoprat said...

Government involvement in the economy is comparable to fire. It is useful and you need it BUT if it gets out of control it becomes a very destructive enemy. Right now it is on the verge of getting out of control.

2:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home