What Was On the McCain Plane. 
John McCain op Steve "Sergeant" Schmidt (right) provides fevered responses to rambling questions by interpid memorist Ana Marie Cox, who has no discernible partisanship, in a
recent TDB. The result is a dumbfounding demonstration that what was on the McCain campaign plane was chatter among arrogant, unread, evasive, envious and obsequious characters who remain ignorant of their own failures. Skipping his heavy-lifting about how presidential campaigns are tough, his heaving sighs about the well-known war hero, his blame-shifting to Blackberry leakers from his own camp, Mr. Schmidt exposes himself as either a fool or a fraud when he claims that he knew the race was done on Monday September 29 when the House GOP voted down the Paulson folly Tarp 1.
"I was flying on a plane with Gov. Palin to Sedona for debate prep, watching the split screen on the TVs, because she had a Jet Blue charter, and it showed the stock market down seven, eight hundred points; it showed the Congress voting down the bailout package on the other side, and then, House Republicans went out and, told the world that the reason that they voted against this legislation, allowed the stock market to crash, allowed the economy to be so injured, was because Nancy Pelosi had given a mean and partisan speech on the floor. And this was their response. And I just viewed it as beyond devastating, and thought that at that moment running with an "R" next to your name, in this year, was probably lethal."
You read correctly. Mr. Schmidt blames the men and women in the House of Representatives, who defended the country from the grotesque theft of pubic funds by pilfering bankers, as the villains who crashed the market, damaged the economy and lost the presidential election. He blames the brave few who fought for us plundered many. This is either a mindless distortion of the facts by an exhausted whiner or is the sort of rewrite of history practiced by the moral coward Soviets. The facts are that the Hank Paulson (left) plan was a half-cooked stew of guesses and self-dealing that has failed from the first and continues to be nothing much but transfer taxpayer money to the greedy and guilty. On Monday September 29, the House rose up and refused to go along with the panicky, and the GOP members were joined by Democrat members to defeat both of the party's leaderships and the White House, a stunning demonstration of backbone and principle. The markets were selling off not because they House wouldn't rollover but because the banks had closed their doors to credit. No one trusted anyone because they all knew they were sneak thieves who had poisoned the asset base of the planet with cancerous loans. It was the high noon of bank gangsterism. The wild selling around the world was because everyone could see that Mr. Paulson was ignorant, as was the White House, both the President and Vice-President, and every central banker with a mobile phone. They still don't know what to do. Even Jim Cramer doesn't know what to do. But all this fact, then and now, is not present for Steve Schmidt. He sees nothing. He hears nothing. He learns nothing. And he was on McCain's plane. We can imagine what the other geniuses around the candidate, Rick Davis, Mark Salter, Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, were saying about the bailout fight and the sturdy 111 men and women of the GOP who refused on September 29 and again on October 3 to go along with the hysterical stupidity. "Those rascally nobody Republicans!" "Those selfish right-wing midgets!"
The Scary Part Is What Is Still On the Obama Plane.
The Friday 7 press conference by President-Elect Obama provided little confidence that the Democratic team can figure out the bank collapse any more than the Republican team. Mr. Obama remains in campaign speak, and he likes to talk about the "middle-class," whatever that is, and "stimulus," whatever that is, and the mission called "helping homeowners," just as if there is still three-day polling in Indiana to worry about. Mr. Obama, the vote is in. Time for clarity. The problem is not the anxious middle-class nor the worthy jobless nor the gloom of the tradesman and online hawkers. The problem is that there is a world wide financial panic caused by a collapse of credit. No bank trusts to loan because the poisoned sausage of bad loans is still stuffed in every vault. The Treasury is throwing taxpayer cash at banks who horde it (polite term, husband) to avoid their own martyrdom. And you want to write $600 checks to "hardworking families?" The recommendation is, "Keep it real, guy." Mr. Obama stood at the microphone in front of the arms-crossed Joe Biden, and the hands-clasped Rahm Emanuel, and behind them were eighteen grey heads and eight American flags. Not a gleam of confidence in a set of eyes. From the fly-fishing Paul Volcker to the still charmingly Hobbit like Robert Reich, not a shrug, not a wink, not a quick pop up on the balls of the feet, nothing in the way of confidence. Twenty we -haven't-a-clue citizens led by one earnest, sonorous, light-resume fellow in the TV lights who three days ago could blame the Republicans and the White House and Wall Street for the sins of the past. Now? "I know that we will succeed if we put aside partisanship and work together as one nation. And that is what I intend to do." Hey! This isn't MSNBC log rolling. This is fear itself. Do you see? I figured not.
John, I am comforted by the fact that Rahm Emanuel volunteered for the IDF. This is a reassuring and joyous fact, and one that I hope you will discuss with honorable Mr. Honlein on your show Sunday.
Schmidt said: House Republicans went out and, told the world that the reason that they voted against this legislation, allowed the stock market to crash, allowed the economy to be so injured, was because Nancy Pelosi had given a mean and partisan speech on the floor.
JB said: Mr. Schmidt blames the men and women in the House of Representatives, who defended the country from the grotesque theft of pubic funds by pilfering bankers, as the villains who crashed the market, damaged the economy and lost the presidential election. He blames the brave few who fought for us plundered many. This is a either a mindless distortion of the facts by an exhausted whiner or is the sort of rewrite of history practiced by the moral coward Soviets.
There were several credible reasons to vote against the package, any one of which could have been offered up, but only a callow fool would have attributed the vote to the fatuously lame excuse that Pelosi said something unkind about the House Republicans. I was dumbfounded by Cantor's statement when he made it, before God and everybody! It was as astoundingly stupid a remark in the midst of a momentous Constitutional clash as Gingrich's whining about having to exit Air Force One from the back of the plane during the budget negotiations of 1995. The Republican rebels had one chance to make their case with the watching world, one chance to offer principle against panic, and they blew it with mind-numbing, whining, self-pity! I haven't been that disgusted and angered by my own side's unreadiness for prime time since the government shutdown of 1995! Boehner may not be the right man to lead the House Republicans, but if the rebels hope to do more than relegate themselves to a permanent debating society, they had better become more focused, coherent, and articulate than they were Sept 29th. They better keep their eyes on the ball. They have the hopes of many riding on them and they don't act like they have any idea what they are doing. I don't blame voters for thinking this crew couldn't find their behinds with both hands and wanting to give someone else a go at running the country.
At least there are two or three of us that know what´s going on. The rest seem to go largely by appearances. It´s always hard when you´re not being told the truth. The messenger is too often partisan or self-serving. I saw graffiti today that read (in translation)´Bush (the) Assassin, Go Home`. I cannot blame them. They´ve been told nothing but lies. Besides, it does not really matter down here in Brazil. They viewed our election results as we would view election results in places like Angola; we comment on the face of the new dictator - whether it is pleasing or not.
The world will start to care once things begin to fall apart; but chances are, we will be told that it´s the strawman´s fault. For now, everybody is happily hoping for the promise of the quick fix to materialize. We can wait ´till January; our pantries are still full and we´ll still be able to afford Christmas.
I am now convinced that McCain threw the election on purpose. His handlers too knew the deal. For his part, he would get an ´honerable mention`in the history books and a multi-colored parachute. No one would ever be told of this, and all the countless other deceptions that weigh heavily on the soul like war injuries.
Both Batchelor and Schmidt are completely correct.
Boehner, Blunt and Cantor took the wrong tack in pointing towards the stunningly stupid remarks of Pelosi as a/the reason more GOP's couldn't be mustered for the first vote.
That wrong tack is why "running with an 'R' next to your name, in this year, was probably lethal."
That wrong tack for the GOP ship is why the Dem's keep winning elections, despite the fact that they haven't been able to break into the 30's in approval ratings, ever since their "first 100 hours" of controlling Congress.
Pelosi is stunningly stupid. Anyone paying attention at this point already knows that (even Dems seem to be aware of it). Her personal approval ratings are slightly higher than the President's only because, like a bulldog, she might be stupid, but she's stupidly, rabidly tenacious.
The GOP's think she's vulnerable because she's stupid, and because Congress is at historical low approvals (all last summer between 9-17%). And she seems vulnerable because she speaks about "ending partisan bickering" yet goes on the floor and speaks about how the $700 billion is "the costs of the Bush Administration's failed economic policies -- policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system."
The bull too, thinks of the bulldog as vulnerable. The mad little mastiff stands below him yapping and growling, while the bull knows full well that one step of his hoof would put the dog out of its misery. The bull is surprised, every time, when a moment later it finds itself rolling on the ground with the vicious little animal tearing his jugular--no way to stop the dog, and no way to stem the bleeding.
Schmidt is right: The GOP's are, more often than not, heading their ship into the wind. They're tacking this way and that, searching for a direction that will give them some headway.
But Batchelor is even more correct.
There's an obscure Old American Proverb that goes something like "The guy making all the mistakes is the guy doing all the work."
The GOP's are floundering at the rudder, and they're sails are flapping against the breeze. All hands are arguing on the deck, pointing this way and that, bickering about when, where, how.
The difference between an armed mob getting shot down in the streets of Boston, and the American Revolution is The Declaration of Independence.
The GOP's need a new Declaration of Independence. A guide and a foundation for their revolution. A map, clearly delineated, so they no longer have to be confused about which course to plot.
"The $700 Billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was the wrong bill because..."
Not because it's bad for Republicans and their party.
Not because it plays into the Dem's hands.
Not because it's bad for America--truly the problem is quite real and paradoxical. The Free Market has been infused with dangerous steroids, and the economy may even have developed an enlarged heart as a result. Radical therapy is called for. An operation, with scalpels and knives and blood and transfusions may be the only thing that saves America.
No, none of those objections stand up.
The reason TARP is the wrong way to go is because the same guy who had the hypodermic needle, sticking our arm full of poisons for years, is the same guy we're asking to "save" us.
The populist-bureaucrats caused this problem. If we're to allow them to solve it with even more populist-bureaucracy, well, we gotta have holes in our heads.
The GOP's who stood against TARP, stood against it because it doesn't solve a damn thing.
It shouldn't be left to John Batchelor and the GOP pundits to be the lone voices saying so.
No TARP without guarantees that the Government and financial institutions won't conspire to infuse us with steroids again.
Period.
I suggest we stop trying to make political hay from the bailout and start worrying about the possible collapse of our economy.
Regardless of what you think of President Elect Obama, he's the freely elected leader of the United States of America for the next four years and he needs our support - and our prayers.
My wanderings on the net today landed me to this precious jewel:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rss/DR110708sec2.html
I think we've got rough days ahead.
Put the stones down and think of trying to help your neighbor.
They are giving off a Marie Antoinnete vibe - instead of cake let's give them some stimulus. THere is a disconnect between reality and rhetoric.
That calculated risk blog has an interesting little tidbit about the chief financial officer of China being recalled suddenly from Peru to China. Their economy may be in trouble which does not bode well for ours.
Help my neighbor? Better help thyself first.
It's populism. On the right, we had the terrorists and national security and on the left we have the economy, and the middle class versus the rich. Both make straw men to hold up as targets of frustration and ignorance. I wouldn't need the DHS and TSA if I could carry my .45 on a plane and giving me $600 seems like an attempt to bribe me with my own money. Only a fool would let that happen. As far as the economy goes, I still haven't seen, or read a good reason why we have rewarded the perpetrators. We have given them how many billions, lowered the interest rates and they still hold on to their positions and cash. If Obama believes that $600 is going to make me forget how feckless and fraudulent he is, he's in for a surprise, and hopefully an education. He reminds me of someone that is used to getting his way because he is a good BS artist, and for once he is confronted with something that does not respect or respond to BS and perception, and he may actually have to do his homework and heavy lifting, or get crushed by it. Giving us a lollipop won't change that.
I think you may have that backwards... Trouble with our economy is trouble for China's.
Calculated risk has a nice diagram that shows what he calls a virtuous cycle between China's manufacturing economy and our consumer based economy. When it reverses it becomes a vicious cycle - it's on the website caclulatedrisk.blogspot.com
The Republicans should follow the Obama example. When Obama debated Hillary he made sure she was asked every question first. If the Republicans were smart they would take the stimulas package away from democrats add a couple hundred more dollars to it. What the heck it's only money and no one alive at the moment will ever live long enough to pay for it. So add a few more free bucks to the masses and look like a hero.Wear T shirts that have a flying elephant with a big S on the front and become Super Republicans.
Health Insurance: Jump on it. For the most part the only person really against government health insurance are the people that already have health care. If you don't have and can't afford it your opinion changes really quick. So Jump their deal and add dental and vision make the Democrats look cheap. After all it was the Dems that ran on healthcare for all so give it to them and when it cost more then they thought? Oh well thats what got the Dems elected so who were the Republicans to deny coverage now.
Talking to dictators: Let them talk they may find out they are not really welcome to begin with and look like the Jackass's they are.
Then in exchange for all this Republican cooperation them Dems should let us drill our own oil and gas.By doing so Republicans can take credit for anything good and point the finger at Dems for everything bad. Has no one noticed that Obama won by saying nothing of importance and everything he thought anyone listening wated to hear.
What is good for the goose is great for the elephant.
It's amazing and disgusting that so many of these political operatives are running for cover after the election, saying stupid stuff like what is covered here. The attacks on Sarah Palin have been particularly disgraceful. Gobbled up all too eagerly by the partisan media.
Today’s Republican Party reminds me of an old man whose left leg is shorter than the right. When he walks, he keeps pulling to the left. What they’re doing to Sarah Palin is a crime. Rather than getting proper shoes, they eat their own - the healthy ones.
The entire world knows that Palin´s wardrobe cost the party $150,000. They repeat it as if it disqualifies any legitimate view she may hold. If any politician’s wardrobe were indeed so important, why is not every politician held to the same standard? Why do we not pass a law, similar to McCain-Feingold, which would limit what politicians can spend on clothes? Absurd? You bet it is! And so is the pillorying of a young woman who did nothing more than try to swim to shore with the carcass of an an albatross tied around her neck.
Republicans lost for several very simple reasons:
1. Bush governed from the left side of the party except for judicial appointments, taxes and pro-life miscellanies. Result: identity confusion (a pox on thee, oh Compassionate Conservatism).
2. Iraq war.... cursed by too few men (thanks, Don) initially and voter fatigue later. Result: impetus for change.
3. Bush inarticulateness and lapses in judgment. Such a poor communicator. Katrina buffoonery. Result: perception of incompetence and remoteness.
4. Flawed candidate. McCain accentuated the identity confusion because of his record and his instincts...more instinctual than strategic....John thinks like a fighter pilot, short term and instinctive, not like war planner. Result: more confusion on who the R's are.
5. Perfect storm. Charismatic speaker with Rorschach test identify + eonomic storm + great support from naive college students and cynical mainstream media. Result: overwhelming odds.
So don't blame Palin...she is hope, future and strength (especially after we peel off the Brooks, Noonans and rest of Georgetown party goers who sniff at graduates of state universities from the West and can't tolerate the Great Unwashed of populism). Just imagine: IF McCain and other R's had voted against bailout, hammered BO on Wright, his Communist "uncle" and Ayers all together, linked McCain reform to the reform in Chicago that Daley-Obama resisted, or even better, imagine another candidate (Romney?) with Palin doing such things????
A little time in the wilderness, returning to first principles and abandoning the "Dem Lite" approach once and for all...a good thing. We need the discipline that a good drubbing provides.
"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances," President-elect Barack Obama said at his first press conference since his election triumph, a reference to the 1980s First Lady who reportedly consulted an astrologer to help set White House scheduling.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/07/obamas-first-gaffe/
Barack Obama
August 4, 1961
7:24 PM
Honolulu, Hawaii
Calculated for:
Standard time, Time Zone 10 hours West
Latitude: 21 N 18 25 Longitude: 157 W 51 30
Positions of Planets at Birth:
Sun 12 Leo 33
Moon 3 Gem 21
Mercury 2 Leo 20
Venus 1 Can 47
Mars 22 Vir 35
Jupiter 0 Aqu 52
Saturn 25 Cap 20
Uranus 25 Leo 16
Neptune 8 Sco 36 Pluto 6 Vir 59
N. Node 27 Leo 18
Asc. 18 Aqu 03
MC 28 Sco 54
2nd cusp 25 Pis 55
3rd cusp 0 Tau 18
5th cusp 23 Gem 59
6th cusp 19 Can 01
Arthur:
You are quite right that Eric Cantor's complaint about Pelosi sounded petty in the dire context. But that doesn't make a boob like Steve Schmidt "right" about anything, especially given his substantive differences with JB's take on the bailout revolt -- namely, it was not the Gallant 111, much less Sarah Palin, that caused McCain's defeat, but Schmidt and and his pathetically incompetent colleagues.
Kantor's real mistake was LEADING with that complaint without first laying the foundational charge that the Democrats were playing partisan-politics-as-usual, this time with the nation's economic well-being. Kantor at least understands that the Dems will brazenly blame Republicans for everything bad that happens, even bad weather (vide Katrina and "climate change"). Pelosi's truly poisonous and lying statement was the signal, if one were needed, that they were about to so the same with the economic meltdown. Which they proceeded to do, much to the befuddlement of Sgt. Schmidt, Lindsay the MacPoodle Graham, and the rest of McCain's band of merry morons.
This continuing inability of Republicans -- usually but not always RINOs -- to counter the Dems' scorched-earth partisanship is a major cause of the Great Disaster of '08, not to mention '06. Perhaps Eric Cantor was making a first attempt, however faltering, to acknowledge this fact and do something about it. If so, he just needs to do it a lot better next time.
There has to be a reason they're not telling us for the bailout. That C-SPAN video on YouTube of a Congressman revealing that members were warned of Marshall Law is something else.
I know all the Goldman boys went to the same schools and they all belong to many of the same yacht clubs, etc - but that's not enough for the bailout rush to make sense.
I've posted this here before, but don't think I had the guts at the time to express the question raised were you actually to click it:
http://www.financialarmageddon.com/2008/09/brad-setser-ext.html
Here it is: "Is the Fed illiquid?"
Think about that for a minute.
I have no idea, but when a blogger on the CFR blog asks that publicly, me thinks you should be concerned.
It's what they're NOT telling us that scares me.
I don't know very much about this Schmidt guy. In fact, it's the first I've heard of him, embarrassed to admit but it's true. However, just from reading the quote at the top of this thread, I think you might be able to interpret his remarks differently, as follows: He might have meant that it was the fact that the Republicans blamed Pelosi for the NO vote rather than stand up proudly and say "We voted NO because the bill sucks!", and that people would realize that even the Republicans who had the spine to vote the right way didn't have the spine to take the next step and take public responsibility for it; and voters would recognize this failure and not support the Republicans. I can't really tell what Schmidt meant, because he didn't elaborate much, but I can tell you that I personally felt betrayed when I read that initial comment that it was Pelosi's fault. I was angry that nobody was standing up and saying it was a GOOD thing that the bailout had been defeated (temporarily). Nobody was saying "This is a victory for grass-roots America". Crikey, they did the right thing, but most of them did it by accident! They didn't even realize the historical significance of their NO vote, most of them. They just got their feelings hurt because nobody asked them what they thought about the bill before pushing it through. This doesn't apply to all the no-voters, but I think it certainly applies to at least all the no-voters who voted YES the second time.
By the way, I was livid that a quick search on Google after the NO vote on the bailout produced close to 100% hits with headlines that read "House fails to act".... "House fails".... etc. This is a problem in and of itself, that the stupid news outlets either can't or won't distinguish between making a conscious decision not to act, and failing to act at all. Think about the implications of that last statement for a moment ... it's scary.
So, if that's what Schmidt meant by any chance, then I agree with him. Otherwise I would say he should just keep his mouth shut and perhaps consider a toupe.
JB, you are assuming that he was born in Hawaii and that is his real birthday. Smile.
Kilroy,
I just went and read the link you posted, and I am confused. I didn't think the Fed could be illiquid. All they have to do is make a journal entry to a reserve bank to create new money, right? It's as if I'm up to the limit on all my credit cards, so I just take out a new credit card, and make the minimum payments on all the old ones, and as long as the taxpayer is there eventually to pay off both my old and the new credit cards, we're good. I don't think the Fed can fail, by definition, except if it were to keep on going to that well over and over and over to the point where it triggered hyperinflation such as has happened to countries like Mexico and Italy in recent memory, and I'm sure many more.
I have a quote from Adam Smith here that I think applies:
"The practice of funding (borrowing by the government against future taxes) has gradually enfeebled every state which has adopted it..... When national debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely paid. The liberation of the public revenue, if it has ever been brought about at all, has always been brought about by a bankruptcy; sometimes by an avowed one, but always by a real one, though frequently by a pretended payment".
You want to direct your questions to Brad Setser, not to me. That;s who's ideas you're engaging at the moment.
All I know is that something scared the Gov't, CNBC (LK included), the MSM, and *both* Presidential candidates enough to spend a LOT of US taxpayer money.
I can't accept that it was merely the prestige of Goldman Sachs...
Here's his blog:
http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/
I'm not sure how you can go about contacting him.
Isn't Paulson's TARP, Rubin's Enron plea to Treasury Oneil but for the whole banking industry. Enron was a Ponzi scheme and the CDO/MBS has become a Ponzi Scheme and Soros knew when to make the whole pyramid or deck of cards collapse.
Now I understand what Obama means by green jobs--he's recycling all the old Clinton officials.
Shlomo, I'm a teeny bit concerned that Rahm fought under a foreign flag. Yes Israel is our best ally, but still disconcerting that the most powerful man in the west wing wore a different flag on his uniform. Will there be issues to his getting clearance?
I don't have time to go around questioning the authors of all the drivel I read on the internet. I simply assume they have financial reasons for trying to mislead people.
I thought you might appreciate this, from Lord Acton: "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." This was said over 100 years ago.
They're not getting it even now, not one of them. To them that's what the economy is, the bankers and the insurance companies. If those are doing good, then I guess the economy is all right. So increasingly those two industries made money sending money to each other, lending each other, insuring each other.
The idea that the economy depends on how we produce things that we need, that each of us might want to buy, is completely foreign to them. Really, the financial industry is there to hide the rest of the economy from the government, and it had served us well because nobody bothered the little guy who paves driveways for people.
The only problem, the banks can only trust each other if the rest of us are producing something. So slowly, completely from the behind, they the government will have to start bailing out more and more. Now it's up to the autmomakers, then they will realize they have to bail out the other remaining big industry, then the small industry and in the end they will be bailing out everyone by sending out rationed food. With all the financial clowns that started this still wearing the same suits. And the ACORN homeowners still dwelling in the same homes.
Had they used the bailout money to speed up bankruptcies of the very first bums who caused it all. Had they used the bailout money, far from all of it, to lend creditors of the bankrupt companies, to help them through the bankruptcy process, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO CREDIT CRUNCH whatsoever, and we would have been OK, somewhat poorer.
Do these guys really think that if AIG fails, that's it, nobody else will want to do it?! Hell, I'd do it, just stop maintaining their monopoly.
That's why the republicans had to go, although they know better what to say to calm us down. That's why we should have a presidential election every year or two, so we could vote the other bums away even faster. Just keep getting rid of them, until someone comes around who knows what the economy is. If we still have one by then.
I would make a slight modification to your observation as follows: the Banks can only trust each other if the rest of us are borrowing something.
What further proof do you need that things are exactly up-side down at the moment, than the fact that the government is claiminig that if we are not borrowing, we are not healthy? I've heard it said so many times these last couple of months that capitalism requires a constant flow of lending and borrowing to survive. But that premise is false; I challenge anyone to prove to me why it should be so.
Here's another one for you: Home prices are down 40%. Well, isn't that good news for the majority of Americans who do not own their own homes? It's bad news for the homeowners; very bad news for the lenders; but those two groups constitute numerical minorities. They sure get a lot of press though! 70% of California households can not afford to buy a house. According to my math, that means that the drop in home prices potentially benefits 70% of us and potentially hurts 30%. And even those 30% that it hurts, are only going to get hurt if they are people that must move or pay off their mortgage for some other reason immediately; if they can just weather the storm a bit longer, they'll be fine.
The big lesson to be learned from the last few months is: Don't buy more house than you can afford, and keep 6 months' salary in the bank (at least) at all times.
Exactly.
And it all shows why the government has no business influencing the markets in the first place. Even if they meant it well and didn't get influenced by the very businesses that they are supposedly trying to regulate for us. The network of what people do mutually for each other in the real economy, is too complex to tinker with. In the end, everything that goes against price being determined by supply and demand, every dollar that someone gets un-earned, is a monkey wrench.
The housing market is a great example. We have been hearing the reports on new home sales as an economic indicator for the past twenty years. Alan Greenspan, the great Ayn Rand disciple would turn his two faucets regulating the interest rates up and down to maintain that indicator a certain way, that was his whole job. Like new houses necessarily are the most wonderful and most important product our economy could come up with. Well, no single product can remain the main indicator that long! Now it turns out that perhaps the single family home and a forty minute commute to work just is not a lifestyle for everyone. And some of us just suddenly cannot make it. That is why home prices in a free and sane economy might go up and down, if the government leaves them alone.
I'm not saying that some people cannot do it. But to work ten hours a day, commute for two hours and fixing up your house and mowing the lawn in the remaining time, does not exactly stimulate invention and really doesn't move the country forward in any way. The only thing it was good for was if the home price would go up over time. And that's where everyone looked up to the government, to somehow make it go faster than the inflation rate. If you replace invention with this mindset, we now see what we get. Exhausted people and government dependency.
These folks must surely have studied the economy for a long time if they came up with such great ways to lead us.