Future Leaders of America Express Reservations About Freedom of Speech

This is a little scary. My generation isn’t too fond of the right to freedom of speech. And when I say “Future Leaders of America,” I don’t mean it in the trite and meaningless way it’s normally used- I mean it literally.

Georgetown University is famous for producing many of the political leaders of this country. Notable alumni include Governor Mitch Daniels, Pat Buchanan, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, George Tenet (Director of the CIA), John Podesta, M. Ashraf Haidari, Justice Antonin Scalia, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Representative Steny Hoyer, Lt. General John Allen, our 42nd President, and many others. You’d have a hard time finding a committee or bureaucracy in Washington without at least one Georgetown alum.

Isn’t it a little bit disturbing that the youngest generation capable of voting has become so complacent about the concept of liberty that those of them who may one day be running this country seem to think it’s a good idea to censor those they disagree with? How do we put an end to this dangerous complacency?

The Dangers of Debt

The central theory of Keynesian economics is that markets can be stabilized by borrowing and spending heavily during recessions and paying it off during boom periods. However, one of the major problems with this idea is that it completely ignores the risk associated with credit.

According to a new analysis of the Great Recession, the countries that were hit the hardest were those with the most aggregate debt (private + public debt).

Maybe this should be obvious, considering how this economic crash was termed a “credit crisis,” but now we have a definitive picture linking the collapse of the mortgage market (which I’ve already explained in great detail, countless times) to the collapse of the rest of the economy.

Basically, the CRA created a housing and mortgage bubble, which was popped by the Federal Reserve spiking lending interest rates. Normally, such a pop would be dissipated by the strength of the rest of the economy, and this is what Alan Greenspan has admitted he was counting on when he deliberately popped that bubble. However, it turns out there was another, more pervasive weakness in the economy: excessive debt due to at least 7 years of Keynesian stimulus. During the 2001 recession, Bush started a comprehensive Keynesian stimulus plan, including tax credits, stimulus spending, and lowered Fed rates. Even though actual economic recovery didn’t begin until the 2003 tax cuts were implemented, the debt-feeding Keynesian machine continued until 2006.

This is important, because it’s an example of Keynesian policy being implemented exactly as Keynes intended: inflationary stimulus during recessions, with deflationary debt-paying during bubbles. But rather than leveling out the booms and the busts, this policy merely resulted in a new bust being primed by excessive debt, hitting us even harder and faster than the last one.

Suppose you’re trying to walk while holding a glass of water. Keynesian stimulus is like trying to run exactly as fast as the oscillation of the water, so that you can move faster while your rhythm cancels out the waves in your cup. It doesn’t work. You just end up with water all over you.

With this in mind, we should be very worried about the economy in the near future. We’ve now racked up more debt than ever before with the latest round of unprecedentedly large Keynesian stimulus. We even bailed out a lot of the companies that failed last time, so that they’ll be around to fail next time too. It is absolute insanity that we’ve set ourselves up for yet another major recession like this.

Tinkering around with the economy through debt the way Keynes suggested is never safe, and therefore not a responsible approach for a national economy. We need to undo the damage that has been done and reduce our spending and debt levels, or suffer further economic collapse in the very near future.

Noam Chomsky is Insane

And this is how we know.

He ignores the easily available confessions bin Laden offered before openly declaring war on the United States. He ignores the difference between attacking military targets and attacking voting civilians. He ignores the fact that most of the deaths in Iraq were at the hands of our enemies, and most of the deaths in Afghanistan were at the hands of Osama bin Laden’s soldiers. He ignores the difference between a dictatorial leader who holds power through military strength and a democratically elected representative. He defers to the circus of “international law” rather than relating morality to principles based on human equality.

In other words, he believes in defining truth by vote, but for some reason places no value on choosing leaders by vote. This man is a maniac, with a very warped perspective on the world.

And his point about Americans naming their fighting machines after their victims? He doesn’t even realize that the reason we name our weapons “Apache” and “Tomahawk” is out of admiration for the fighting skills of those old cultures (not to mention the fact that “tomahawk” actually refers to a weapon used by those cultures, not the cultures themselves). It’s almost a romanticized idealism putting them above us that leads to naming conventions like that, not some sort of sick attempt at taunting the ghosts of the past.

Yet, Chomsky believes we Americans are no better than bin Laden. But of course, all we have to do to prove him wrong is let him live. I mean, we call him an idiot, but we don’t go and try to blow him up for his disgusting opinions.