1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9573/change-under-obama-from-dumb-to-dumber-and-from-bad-to-worse/

“Change” Under Obama: From Dumb to Dumber and From Bad to Worse

March 9, 2009 by

Collective bargaining, with its imposition of higher costs and prices and lower product quality, is at the root of the destruction of the American automobile industry and many other American industries. President Obama not only chooses not to know this, but selects union leaders as his companions, including the leader of the United Automobile Workers Union. FULL ARTICLE

{ 37 comments }

newson March 9, 2009 at 9:56 am

obama knows, he just doesn’t care enough. nor do his backers, who outlaid good money for his presidency.

Bruce Koerber March 9, 2009 at 11:07 am

Apolitical Political Commentary!
Monday, March 9, 2009

Are The Warnings Built Into The Constitution Prophetic?

The requirement in the Constitution for the President to be an American by birth must have been prophetic, not in the sense that it came from a prophet but that the perverse consequences are coming true!

Unrestrained by the Constitution and with an indifference towards it, a socialist with birth ties all over the world could try to make the dream of the scion of a communist turn into the worst nightmare of the founding fathers of our Constitutional Republic.

That is why returning to the restraints and requirements of the Constitution is especially important right now!

Brad March 9, 2009 at 11:55 am

Obama has to be aware of these arguments, he simply doesn’t care. It provides more money to the people who back him, and those harmed can’t hurt him. That’s what politics is today. That’s what our Federal Government has become for both sides of the aisle. What they support, in and of itself, doesn’t kill the economy, “good” IS done – for some. And the harm done to others is swept under the rug.

Unfortunately we’ve had nearly 100 years of this, and the additive effect of self serving politics is now coming undone. But that didn’t stop Bush from following the groove set before him, and it’s not stopping Obama from following the leftist groove.

All the while our economy and market are collapsing while they continue to be at each others’ throats. And the main stream media fuels it. The size of the problem was underestimated by Bush, and it is underestimated by Obama (et al). They keep playing partisan politics while we collapse.

But then I don’t believe that they know what to do than what they are used to doing. If the Repubs were in power we’d just launch another foreign war against a noun, and now that the Dems are in all they can conceive to get things going is solar panels, wind mills, and funding “art”. Basically beat the same dead horses they’ve been beating for decades.

Neither side seems to understand that this is a whole new deal. Busting out the ghosts of FDR, Lincoln, or Reagan isn’t going to fix anything. Getting the hell out of the way is the only solution.

One that simply doesn’t compute.

So I am certainly entertaining buying gold, MRE’s, water jugs, and some guns and ammo.

billwald March 9, 2009 at 1:04 pm

I suspect that 90% of the people who read this blog have never unintentionally missed a meal and have never lived in a country that did not have collective bargaining. Try reading some history of the working people in the 19th century and up to 1950 or so. The only alternative to collective bargaining is de facto slavery. Anyone out there actually think that an individual can bargain with GM, Ford, AT&T, Safeway . . . ?

Inquisitor March 9, 2009 at 1:26 pm

OH NOES! DE FACTO SLAVERY! :O

Do you ever do anything but engage in histrionics?

Toby March 9, 2009 at 1:31 pm

In my opinion, the author misses the point, that unions and collective bargaining as such aren’t evil and, in fact, belong to a well-functioning free market.

The whole thing just gets nasty when government intervenes in favour of one side.

@ billwald: You seem to believe in the distorted picture left-wingers keep drawing about the Industrial Revolution.
Inform yourself at unbiased sources.

DavidM March 9, 2009 at 1:33 pm

This article raises some valid points, but for a more nuanced view of labor unions and collective bargaining, read Kevin Carson’s
The Ethics of Labor Struggle: A Free Market Perspective.

DavidM March 9, 2009 at 1:47 pm

This article raises some valid points, but for a more nuanced view of labor unions and collective bargaining, read Kevin Carson’s
The Ethics of Labor Struggle: A Free Market Perspective.

Taylor March 9, 2009 at 2:07 pm

Uh oh, DavidM, you just linked to a Kevin Carson work on a George Reisman post… don’t you know those two are SWORN ENEMIES?!

To arms, men!

Inquisitor March 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Toby, Reisman explicitly refers to the elements he considers egregious… he’s not exactly left any room for confusion. I don’t think he’s said collective bargaining per se is evil… only the examples of it he gave in his article…

Francisco Torres March 9, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Billwald,
I suspect that 90% of the people who read this blog have never unintentionally missed a meal and have never lived in a country that did not have collective bargaining.

I have lived in a country WITH 70 years of militant collective bargaining (Mexico) – the unions collectively extorted contracts from small businesses even when they were family-run only affairs with no laborers. By the way, there is no relationship between missing a meal and collective (or lack of) bargaining.

Try reading some history of the working people in the 19th century and up to 1950 or so. The only alternative [???] to collective bargaining is de facto slavery.

False dichotomy – and a lie. Your hysterical assertions are not evidence. With collective bargaining, the worker is tied to his or her union, no matter what – wouldn’t that also represent a “de facto” form of slavery under your extremely loose meaning of the word?

Anyone out there actually think that an individual can bargain with GM, Ford, AT&T, Safeway . . . ?

I can. If I don’t want to work with them under their conditions, I simply work for another company. Unless, of course, you *believe* one is ENTITLED to work for GM, Ford, AT&T or Safeway . . .

Raj March 9, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Most important of all is to start making actual things again, not just imaginary wealth to match imaginary economic modules, and do so as far from the Fordist model of production as possible. The Japanese had the jump on us, because they realized that true “growth” is the extent to which the workers are allowed to control the means of production, as opposed to the workers being turned into under-specialized robots.

David Letourneau March 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm

The good professor presents only part of the situation, he leaves out the conditions that existed prior to the formation of unions, dangerous working conditions, long hours and insufficient pay. He does not write of the violence perpetrated by the corporations, using hired goons and police, against workers attempting to organize. Ford Motor Co. and the coal mines of West Virginia are but two examples. Unions certainly brought better working conditions and more fair wages.

On the other hand, as unions became more powerful, they became as arrogant and obnoxious as the corporate bosses. The workers now had 2 bosses, the corporation and the union.

Today we have an unsustainable working environment. Workers salaries have been stagnant for the last 30 years and executive pay has increased from 20 to 40% to 200 to 400% of the average worker. Clearly the fascist/socialist corporate state is hellbent on eliminating the unions and the middle class and bringing back the fuedal model with the vast majority being poor and dictated to by the corporate executives and the politicians. What is going on today with the bailouts of the bankers, insurance and automobile companies with taxpayer money cannot possibly work over the long term.

What is needed is clear and truthful communication between all parties, a desire to work for the common good and a return to constitutional law.

newson March 9, 2009 at 5:39 pm

raj says:
“The Japanese had the jump on us, because they realized that true “growth” is the extent to which the workers are allowed to control the means of production…”

this is not a correct description of the japanese model. worker units had/have more autonomy in the production process, but not control of the means.

Taylor March 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Raj,

You picked a hell of a comparison. You wouldn’t be referring to the corporatist cabal economy that has been mired in recession (now heading for depression like everyone else) for over two decades now, would you?

Mark March 9, 2009 at 7:34 pm

There’s nothing wrong with collective bargaining in general. The problems start when government grants the power of coercion to labor unions. Labor unions should be voluntary.

Gil March 9, 2009 at 9:16 pm

“There’s nothing wrong with collective bargaining in general.” – Mark

Isn’t that just cheap pandering? Strictly speaking any worker is a guest on the employer’s property – if the worker wears out his welcome in any way then he becomes a trespasser and if he doesn’t leave in a prompt manner then the employer can use force to eject him. The employee, in a free market, is only supposed to bargain using his productivite skills via showing he should be paid more because he is worth more to the business. It’s pretty poor debating if the employee can only appeal to charity or force.

Eric March 9, 2009 at 9:25 pm

I got fired from my first job because I wasn’t a union member. The union got me fired. So, that’s my evidence that unions cause unemployment.

I don’t think Obama knows enough (how old is he anyway – I didn’t know anything about economics until I heard of Harry Browne who wrote about Mises in 1996). I was older than Obama is now back in 96. I confess to not knowing anything about Austrian economics in 96.

How can anyone become president if they actually know anything anyway? They have to have some skills, but for what? Lying seems to be the number one requirement to get elected (all the more amazing that Ron Paul ever got elected). A pretty face, nice speaking voice, and youth seem to be what people want. And, this election was really the anti-Bush vote anyway.

I don’t know if McCain could have been any worse, but I still think he would have caused a nuclear war, so no matter how bad Obama does, hopefully he won’t push that button. But maybe I’ll have to put this computer under my desk, so I can duck and cover faster.

Liberationist March 9, 2009 at 9:42 pm

Living in the worker’s paradise known as Australia, I also oppose compulsory unionism. We no longer have such powerful unions as once existed, but they are trying to regain their privileged status, especially as their numbers have gone down. We have the compulsory minimum wage, meaning we also have rising unemployment, as companies won’t offer jobs at the mandated level.
Voluntary unionism, yes, compulsory, no!

filc March 9, 2009 at 10:53 pm

@David Letourneau

A popular argument you pose very typical and one that has been debunked a 1000 times over here. You address a symptom of problem, poor working conditions, and mis-place the blame.

You have much reading to do.


Today we have an unsustainable working environment. Workers salaries have been stagnant for the last 30 years and executive pay has increased from 20 to 40% to 200 to 400% of the average worker”

As long as there are people out there who believe we need to manipulate these things than we will always be in the turmoil we are in today.

FYI Just about everything you stated in that quote is factually wrong.

SailDog March 9, 2009 at 11:49 pm

So high oil prices, the failure to understand Peak Oil and its implications, bad marketing, the wrong products, bad government (insufficient taxation of energy) had nothing to do with it!

Give me break! But then I have very little time for Reisman. He really doesn’t have a clue.

Gil March 10, 2009 at 12:39 am

More points from G Reisman’s article:

If people don’t have a right to form trade unions (voluntary ones would be toothless tigers) then why does Reisman care about the secrecy of it all? The non-union members might get hurt? Why not go back to good ol’ days where trade unions couldn’t get legal recognition because they served no free market purpose? Maybe employers and non-union labour can team up and get the union members arrested via having CCTV inside the workplace, give the police video evidence of threats and show the public the real face of trade unions?

On the other hand this is a bit of a head scratcher:

“Precisely this ‘success’, however, is the cause of major problems. The first is that higher wage rates reduce the quantity of labor that any given amount of capital funds can employ. For example, at a wage of $20,000 per year, $1 million of payroll funds can employ 50 workers for a year. But at a wage of $25,000 per year, it can employ only 40 workers for a year. With every further rise in the wage, correspondingly fewer workers are able to be employed.”

Isn’t Reisman zero-summing here? If labour is cheaper an employer will hire more in direct proportion to labour’s cheapness? Since cheaper labour tends to low-skilled labour is this any different from make-work procedures whereby mechanical diggers are replaced by people with shovels because more will be hired?

And, finally, bit of an aside but:

“Furthermore, while Bush may be accused of disregarding the rights of foreign terrorists at war with the United States . . .”

What rights should foreign terrorists who are at war with the U.S.A. should the President be abiding by? If the President was showing more concern for the enemy than his fellow citizens then he should be arrested for treason. Maybe Libertarians would think twice if the argument was rephrased: “a rightful private-property owner disregards the ‘rights’ of a violent armed robber on his premises”.

Perhaps this article can help shed some light of Reisman strange assertion:

Are Al-Qaida Prisoners of War?

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/POW.HTM

TokyoTom March 10, 2009 at 3:09 am

Dr. Reisman, I share your concern about economic ignorance in the Obama adminstration, as well as in Congress and the American people generally. I would note, however, that such ignorance comes at no cost to politicians – and may even be beneficial to their personal interest, which is stay in power and while there to expand their own authority and ability to broker tax dollars and legal preferences to rent-seeking corporations and constituents.

Politicans understand their own interests, and the rent-seekers understand their own, so the lack of an understanding of the impact on citizens generally of the policies they initiate or perpetuate comes at no cost and may even help to salve their own consciences.

Further, certain parts of your argument are unsupported, overstated or are irrelevant distractions, such as the following:

- Curiously, you do not discuss whether, as employment is a contract, workers ought to be able to freely associate in a union and negotiate with employers as a block.

- While I am certainly opposed to a federal law that mandates open votes for unions, it’s not clear what harm, if any, will result in the states that have open-shop laws that provide that union membership is not manadaatory and prohibit employers from discriminating against workers who do not join.

- At least in the open-shop states, collective bargaining is NOT “an attempt to compel employers to deal with just one party”.

- While you draw a picture of Obama’s apparent ignorance, I suggest that more cynicism may be appropriate – he might affirmative not want to really understand, as that might cause him to check his own power. But in any case, you provide no support for the suggestion that Obama’s “actual knowledge — of economics, of the meaning of individual rights, and of the nature of government — appears to lag far behind that of his bumbling predecessor.” I serious doubt that this is even possible, but in any case, what’s the point of throwing a gratuitous cumb of support to Bush and the Republicans, who managed to create the Perfect Storm that brought us Obama? Trying to salve your own conscience for your support for this disastrous “leader”?

- “while Bush may be accused of disregarding the rights of foreign terrorists at war with the United States”: here is another irrelevant – and twisted – distraction from your main points. Surely you recognize that our military leaders have been the strongest opponents of applying the Geneva Convention standards (no norture) to our treatiment of suspected foreign terrorists (many apparently simply foreigners sold out fby Afghan natives in exchange for bounties), so I have to wonder, do even you hate our military leaders? But of course this who reference is a strawman, as Amercian opposition to the “war on terror” is quite obviously not a concern about the interest of a few terrorists, but about our OWN interests involved with spending trillions on a reckless fantasy (while Bushies lined their pockets), with alienating our friends abroad, setting off culture wars at home and vastly expanding the power and secrecy of government.

Your skewed remarks continue to reveal you as a fan of large, statist corporations – the kind whom our government is now busy bailing out of bad decisions to the tune of an Iraq war or two – and hardly a friend of liberty.

Speaking of “friends of liberty”, I invite “free market intellectuals” like Dr. Reisman and others here to start entertaining second thoughts about the state grant of limited liability to shareholders, and its role in the vast moral hazard-generating and rent-seeking machine that clearly holds sway and is rotting away our financial industry:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/04/when-will-tom-woods-and-other-quot-free-market-quot-intellectuals-have-second-thoughts-about-limited-liability.aspx

It does, after all, bear on the question of all of the rules that have come out of Washington to help tie our enormous, and once very dirty, Gullivers down.

Kyle March 10, 2009 at 5:12 am

“Your skewed remarks continue to reveal you as a fan of large, statist corporations – the kind whom our government is now busy bailing out of bad decisions to the tune of an Iraq war or two – and hardly a friend of liberty.”

So whom is bailing out whom? Certainly without the cooperation of the U.S. government, without the cooperation of ‘this’ U.S government, surely you don’t suppose the corporations could bail themselves out?

Or instead are you suggesting that the corporations sought undue risk, despite the lack of a safety net provided by the government, and the current demands of bailouts for corporations are appearing ad hoc?

Oh, that’s right, the U.S. government did insure the mortgage backed securities bundles through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and surely, these institutions were not founded as part of any “right-wing” capitalist conspiracy?

To clarify: Capitalist ideology holds that the free market is a better solution to meet the needs of citizens than the government. I don’t know why we’re still debating this in the 21st century, for the opposition to the free market mechanism of demand satisfaction implies one of two counter-arguments: That the government knows better for citizens what they want than they actually do; or alternatively, it doesn’t matter what the citizens want, it only matters what the government wants.

Before this really leaves your head spinning, consider that capitalism is the most environmentally friendly economic system ever devised. The principle of scarcity is explicitly recognized through pricing, as opposed to central planning, which operates on the principle, “As it is commanded, so it shall be done.”

Furthermore, a free market is not based on a pie, or “zero-sum” game, it is based on labor, and the transformation of resources or rendering of services that add utility to the buyer. Only in resource-driven, under-developed nations do we find the economy reflecting a cut-throat game where one gains inherently at the expense of others. Non-coincidentally these regimes are far from “liberal.”

As for corporations, I much prefer an institution that offers me a good or service I desire in exchange for capital I have earned, than an extortionate and exploitative “agent of social good” that sticks a gun to my head and demands tribute.

So before you conflate pro-free market with “statist-corporate hacks” I suggest you delve into libertarian theories a bit more carefully, rather than aggregating all “pro-capitalist” ideas together under the socialist rubric “product of dialectical materialist brainwashing,” or if you prefer the Neomarxist view, “indoctrinated by the hegemonic superstructure.”

Inquisitor March 10, 2009 at 10:28 am

“So high oil prices, the failure to understand Peak Oil and its implications, bad marketing, the wrong products, bad government (insufficient taxation of energy) had nothing to do with it! ”

To do with what, precisely?

Inquisitor March 10, 2009 at 10:30 am

“So high oil prices, the failure to understand Peak Oil and its implications, bad marketing, the wrong products, bad government (insufficient taxation of energy) had nothing to do with it! ”

To do with what, precisely?

Joe Stoutenburg March 10, 2009 at 12:07 pm

I’ll echo (and hopefully clarify) the thoughts of some others. I think that Reisman ignores the potential for collective bargaining via voluntary means. In his famous “Economics in One Lesson”, Henry Hazlitt had this to say:

For the competition of workers for jobs, and of employers for workers, does not work perfectly. Neither individual workers nor individual employers are likely to be fully informed concerning the conditions of the labor market. An individual worker may not know the true market value of his services to an employer. And he may be in a weak bargaining position. Mistakes of judgment are far more costly to him than to an employer. If an employer mistakenly refuses to hire a man from whose services he might have profited, he merely loses the net profit he might have made from employing that one man; and he may employ a hundred or a thousand men. But if a worker mistakenly refuses a job in the belief that he can easily get another that will pay him more, the error may cost him dear. His whole means of livelihood is involved. Not only may he fail to find promptly another job offering more; he may fail for a time to find another job offering remotely as much. And time may be the essence of his problem, because he and his family must eat. So he may be tempted to take a wage that he believes to be below his “real worth” rather than face these risks. When an employer’s workers deal with him as a body, however, and set a known “standard wage” for a given class of work, they may help to equalize bargaining power and the risks involved in mistakes.

The rest of the chapter of unions contains many of the same analysis as offered in the article on which we are commenting.

I think that it is worth recognizing the arguments that Hazlitt advanced. There is an assymetry of risk between the employer and the employee. An employer (at least one of any size) who loses out on a productive employee is not nearly as bad off as an employee who loses his entire income. For this reason, individual bargaining may be skewed to the advantage of the employer.

The key is to forbid either side to use intimidation, coercion or violence to further their interests. It goes without saying that an employer may not enslave his workers to labor if they would rather not work. On the other hand, wage earners who bargain collectively should consider the possibility that the emloyer may be able to hire other workers at wages lower than what they are demanding.

In practice, I think that collective bargaining is likely to only be necessary in highly specialized fields for which there are few potential employees. For a job that has many, many qualified workers (working on an auto manufacturing assembly line comes to mind), the market should do quite fine to reveal the market wages and terms of employment.

Jack's Pipe March 11, 2009 at 3:42 am

“Anyone out there actually think that an individual can bargain with GM, Ford, AT&T, Safeway . . . ?”

Yes, I have done it many times. A company offered me a position, I negotiated salary, etc. In some cases I took the job, in others I didn’t. In some cases they heard my demands and said “no thanks.”

I have no problem with people forming a union and collectively bargaining with an employer as long as the employer has the right to fire all the collective bargainers. What is needed is freedom on both sides of the contract. What is needed is the elimination of all collective bargaining laws.

TokyoTom March 11, 2009 at 6:48 am

Kyle, while i’m flattered by all your words, I’m be much more impressed if you’d troubled yourself to understand that I do not disagree with you on practically anything that you were so eager to disgorge.

I’ve been commenting here for years now – starting with a Dr. Reisman post, as it so happens – and the LvMI kindly hosts my blog (which really enterprising peole can find by clicking on my name!).

As a substantive matter, I certainly do NOT conflate pro-free market with “statist-corporate hacks”; rather, I was simply referring to Dr. Reisman’s fairly consistent posting in support of large, statist corporations and against those groups who try to contest their influence, in the market and before government. The clue is to note that I said that his remarks “continue” to show him as a fan of arge, statist corporations.

TT

newson March 11, 2009 at 10:52 am

to joe stoutenburg:

hazlitt was wrong in his assumption that there is an asymmetry of risk to the detriment of labor.

hutt’s “theory of collective bargaining” in the literature section deals with this misapprehension (held by adam smith, amongst others).

even at a commonsense level, labor being far less task-specific than capital makes it difficult to assert any advantage in the power relationship. if one worker leaves the lathe, that production ceases and i can’t deploy the capital in any other way; that lathe-operator can choose from any number of alternative jobs.

i may go broke if my production is interrupted, the worker may also be pauperized if his capital runs out before the next job. it’s impossible to say who has the knife by the blade and who by the handle in any general sense.

Michael A. Clem March 11, 2009 at 1:17 pm

I’ve always hated the argument that the worker should be able to afford the product he helps produce. Does that mean we should autoworkers a lot more, and soda pop bottling employees a lot LESS, even if their job requirements and skills are roughly equal? After all, a bottle of pop costs very little compared to an automobile. :-)
Besides, personal budgets, and what employees choose to buy, and thus “can afford”, can vary considerably depending upon the personal worker, even among workers doing the same job for the same pay.

Joe Stoutenburg March 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm

newson:

You may be right about the risk assymetry. I think in any case that there is a point on which you, I and most people reading at this site should agree. Such matters (if they exist) should be resolved via peaceful market forces. In a world of scarcity, some amount of conflict is inevitable. As free market advocates, we should strive to replace conflict with cooperation.

Government mandates tend to exasperate conflict. On the one hand, they may seem to give advantage to workers via their unions. On the other hand, they may intervene in some industries to limit competition and so affect the ability of workers to change employers or to open a company in competition to their former employers.

I don’t think that union advocates recognize this fact.

newson March 11, 2009 at 5:30 pm

to joe stoutenburg:
yes, i agree, in an environment where violence and intimidation is not tolerated from any quarter, unions could form a useful function.

i just wanted to point out that this flimsy generalized-power-asymmetry argument is a favourite of the today’s unions, who use it to boost legitimacy in the public’s eyes, diverting attention from other, more thuggish actions.

N. Joseph Potts March 12, 2009 at 12:58 pm

REAL freedom to join (or quit) any union at any time for EACH worker (not ALL workers) would destroy the present power structure of labor unions. It’s the old “each vs. all” thing, all over again.

EACH worker would either join A (not THE) union of his choice OR none at all, at any time. No elections, no Card Check, no nothing.

And each union would always know which workers were paying it dues, and which were not. No secrets, either.

By the way, I’ve been dealing directly with GM, Ford, and Chrysler ever since I began owning cars. Why can’t workers do the same as customers have always done?

Sonic Ninja Kitty March 17, 2009 at 10:20 am

Dear Dr. Reisman,

Thank you for the wonderful article. It’s definitely one to bookmark and come back to often.

When you talked about “the readiness of Obama and his associates to resort to intimidation to further their goals” it made me recall the Obama camp’s behavior during the Democratic primaries. They are not only ready–they are very well practiced!

Dr. Lynette Long has done extensive research and documentation of outright illegal actions taken by the Obama camp such as busing out of staters in to caucuses (providing free meals, gifts like ipods, and cash for their time), preventing Clinton supporters from entering the caucus venues and/or registering to participate, verbally and physically threatening Clinton supporters in some venues, and caucus participant tallying irregularities (i.e., cheating). She used to have a web site up with her extensive and detailed research, but it has recently been password protected, probably due to harassment from Obama supporters. They have harassed, hacked into, and destroyed several web sites with which they do not agree. The best link I could find at the moment is this: http://www.sodahead.com/blog/12649/the-triumph-of-fraud-caucus-analysis-by-dr-lynette-long/
Hopefully anyone interested in learning more about this can find their way from there.

Although your excellent article is about unions, I just thought I should mention the caucus fraud as the legally and morally bankrupt techniques and total disregard for peoples’ free will are exactly the same as what will be used to form unions. I wanted to point out that we do not have to wait to see what this guy and his associates are really made of. Many of us have already experienced it and it is extremely alarming.

rbblum March 17, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Because the current administration rely greatly on charisma in order to pedal its ideology of altering
proven American ideals and the socioeconomic landscape in favor of non-producers, I suggest you continually post an open invitation to your fellow associates to participate in sharing valid considerations regarding agenda items which are counterproductive. Education is a lifetime endeavor.

Regrettably Dr Reisman, the current political landscape requires a call for all able-minded communicators knowledgeable in economics to express their thoughts in regard to the misguided ideology of our current administration. Thank you for presenting your unabashed, well-reasoned viewpoint

rbblum March 17, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Because the current administration rely greatly on charisma in order to pedal its ideology of altering
proven American ideals and the socioeconomic landscape in favor of non-producers, I suggest you continually post an open invitation to your fellow associates to participate in sharing valid considerations regarding agenda items which are counterproductive. Education is a lifetime endeavor.

Regrettably Dr Reisman, the current political landscape requires a call for all able-minded communicators knowledgeable in economics to express their thoughts in regard to the misguided ideology of our current administration. Thank you for presenting your unabashed, well-reasoned viewpoint

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: