Why President Obama was Reelected

It’s a safe assumption to make that the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of the United States Presidency will be talked about for decades to come. In history textbooks, 2012 will be referred as a momentous election year when the nation came together and collectively decided to stick with a president through the thick. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and other “transformative” presidents before him, Obama will be praised for keeping the country together in the midst of economic difficulty. In sum, he will be called a popular figure who triumphed over America’s old guard and lead the nation into a new era of solidarity and renewed social tolerance.

The lavishing has already begun with prominent voices on the left like Paul Krugman declaring the “new America” has made Obama their champion. It’s being said in major newspapers across the world that this new incarnation of the American experiment is much more attuned to the struggle of minorities and the downtrodden. They went with a President who will use the divine power of the federal government to lift the disenfranchised onto the platform of dignified living.

Like most of what passes for accepted history, this is downright propaganda. The country as a whole wasn’t frightened over sudden change by throwing out the incumbent. It wasn’t a declaration of a new, more diverse America. Shaping a new destiny wasn’t on the casual voter’s mind on November 6th.

There is a rational explanation for the President’s reelection which doesn’t invoke a deep or complex meaning. The only way to explain the outcome is in the simplest and direct prose: the moochers prevailed.

Obama’s winning tactic was to do what any respectable man does when he wishes to have something; he bought it. From cell phones and contraceptives to food stamps and unemployment benefits, the Obama administration kept the money flowing to ensure a steady turnout on Election Day. The coup de grâce was painting his opponent as a second coming of Dickens’ Scrooge that was ready to cut the voters from their trust funds.

The campaign made no attempt to hide this tactic. In an online video, celebrity Lena Dunham was tapped to extol the virtues of government-supplied birth control. The advertisement was aimed at a younger generation already guaranteed access to their parent’s health insurance till they turn 26 (and then morph simultaneously into full grown, self-sufficient adults). The video was a great demonstration of the campaign strategy but it was topped by one woman from Cleveland, Ohio who exemplified the public trough mentality on camera. Commonly referred to as the Obama-phone lady, this woman was so enraptured by her “free” cell phone and other welfare entitlements, she was determined to “keep Obama in president” to use her exact words. Though clearly dimwitted, Ms. Obamaphone was a phenomenal orator of the President’s message of goodies in exchange for votes.

Though it worked splendidly, Obama’s strategy was not brilliantly crafted from the minds of experts. It was the same bread and circus routine employed by the Romans and applied to modern demographics that relish in a victim-like mentality.  Women, the youth, blacks, Hispanics, and the elderly were all catered to through subtle patronization and outright payoffs.  It was the same tactic employed by the Roosevelt administration when the New Deal got underway. As journalist John T. Flynn wrote of the popular 32nd president:

It was always easy to sell him a plan that involved giving away government money. It was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes.

The 2009 auto industry bailout was Obama’s great tribute to Roosevelt. By infusing two auto giants with the federal government and still maintaining the appearance of their private ownership, the President convinced a majority in the battleground state of Ohio to put him back in the White House. Criticizing the auto bailout was the last nail in the coffin for Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations.

None of this is to say the election of Romney would have meant the much needed axing of the welfare state and state-subsidized dependency. The army of bureaucrats tasked with cutting checks in the name of kindness would still work to expand their budgets. The wealthy interests the former Massachusetts governor looked to appease were welfare queens in themselves and would likely receive all the state coddling money can buy.

Obama won the election by catering to the worst of all human traits: envy. He demonized the rich while promising to take more of their income and give it out in the form of entitlement payments. Under his presidency, the attitude of the takers will continue to swell as they clamor for more privileges. Anybody who speaks out against the Robin Hood scheme will be called an unconscionable xenophobe and a hater of the poor. The protestant work ethic will slowly be choked into submission through deliberate iconoclasm launched by the political class and their pet media pundits.

The opponents of capitalism will keep blaming money and greed for all the ills of society. They will also keep wearing fashionable clothes and coordinating protests on their smartphones while drinking caffeinated drinks that cost the same as some third world country’s average salary. They will scoff at hard work when it’s the sweat and labor of generations before them that has created the living standard they enjoy today. Under their tutelage America will be brought into its final form of, as right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh accurately defined it, a “country of children.”

Economist Thomas DiLorenzo sums up the key to Obama’s victory in this pungent bit of fine wisdom:

Every time Romney made one of his “let’s get the economy going again” speeches extolling the virtues of hard work he terrified the millions of welfare bums and parasites and motivated them more than ever to stand in line for hours to vote for Santa Claus Obama, their “savior” from having to work for a living.  (It’s always the low opportunity cost class that has the “luxury” of spending half a day or more standing in a line).

Romney and Obama may be as interchangeable as a pair of dice, but the former’s rhetoric that highlighted self-sufficiency was enough to turn off the majority of the voting public. With Obama’s reelection comes the onward march of American society’s degeneration into that of the lazy, bitter masses forever on the lookout to loot a hapless minority still trying to make an honest living. The coming brave new world will be filled to the brim with self-righteous individuals eager to shuffle around the Earth’s gifts to achieve some kind of equality. In the process, none of them will produce a lick of good outside of satisfying their own disturbed need to dominate. It will be rule of the inept over the capable. Barack Obama will lead the way. He will be replaced in four years with someone that follows the same doctrine. The collective age of the country will continue to collapse till it reaches just shy of an unclothed infant wailing for succor. Except it will be grown men doing the crying and no one around to feed him because the sensible among us has already left.

The people have spoken and made it so.

Tags: , , , ,

11 Responses to “Why President Obama was Reelected”

  1. Jeff says:

    I think he misses the mark. I think the majority of those who voted for him are people who had jobs and feel that they aren't receiving anything in welfare.

    If his argument is that without the people he describes, Obama couldn't have won, I agree. However, if all of the Ron Paul people (and others on the right not satisfied with Romney) had voted for Romney instead of staying home or voting 3rd party, Obama couldn't have won either. Also, the only two Obama voters I've discussed this with said, outright and in the first 15 seconds of conversation, that they were afraid of what Romney "was going to do to women". Take away the phony-baloney "war on women" propaganda from the Obama campaign, and Obama also could not have won.

    But the largest issue, in my opinion, had to do with none of those things. I think it was racism, pure and simple. I think that a large portion of the non-whites in America are just plain sick of looking up and seeing white people sitting in the positions of power in this country – and there is no one more white than the Romneys. I think that the literal mood that these people felt when they thought of putting a white Romney into office was sullen and negative, and the mood that they felt when they thought of having non-white Obama in office was of empowerment and positive. Every argument any one of these kinds of voters would make for re-electing Obama would really be just rationalizations their feelings. It was pure, ugly, unadulterated, racism…and you can't get past that kind of irrational bigotry.

    By the way, no single group has been mentioned more than women in the last vote – aka "the gender gap" – but white women went overwhelmingly for Romney, not Obama. The point being: it was minorities who went for Obama, in spite of his policies devastating their opportunities economically and hurting them more than he's hurt whites economically since he's been in office.

    For some exposure to this, just watch MSNBC for a while. The business model of that station seems to be based upon an ethnic hatred of Republicans. Any darkness of skin, whether black, or Hispanic, or Egyptian, or Latino, or Arab, or Persian, or Mediterranean, etc., will be combined, whether in host or guest, with an obvious anger at Republicans and/or an accusation of Republican dishonesty or hypocrisy. Also notice that when MSNBC broadcast the Republican national convention, that they surgically removed any minority speakers from their broadcast. Democrats are very successfully branding the Republican party as being white, male, racist, and misogynist. It's an untrue and unfair accusation – but you can't argue with success.

  2. Ohhh Henry says:

    Besides the moochers voting for more stuff, there may have been something even more directly underhanded going on. I heard some kind of pundit trying to account for Obama's victory on the John Batchelor radio show out of NY City. He said that democratic party workers combed through electoral rolls to find the names of voters who according to past records have never voted. They made a big effort to visit these non-voters and convince them not to vote at polling stations, but instead to mail in ballots for Obama. He claimed that this was one of the factors that helped lift B.O. to victory.

    I know nothing about the facts of this story, but my fraud radar (fraudar) is going off like an air raid siren. How could a large enough army of political volunteers be found to visit the many thousands (or tens of thousands) of non-voters whose votes would have to be cast in order to make a difference? How long would it take to arrange transportation, hotels, meals, etc. for this army of volunteers and for them to walk miles and miles, knock on thousands of doors, find the persons named on the electoral rolls and engage these presumably ignorant and apathetic people in discussion or argument and ultimately convince them to fill in, sign and mail in a ballot? It boggles the mind … in fact I'm pretty sure that this never took place in any significant numbers. Instead the "activists" probably filled in the ballots themselves, forged the signatures and mailed in the thousands or tens of thousands votes. If the people whose names they used have never voted, what's the chance of them showing up and casting a vote in person? Negligible.

    It's a new twist on the "dead voters" scam. The lower the election turnout, the greater number of "stiffs" whose votes can be submitted by proxy in future elections. It goes to show how every new innovation that is introduced in order to allegedly make democracy more accessible (in this case mail-in voting) is quickly perverted and turned against the people by armies of moochers. The more ways they give you to vote, the more ways they will invent to use elections cheat you and rob you.

    As for Somalia …

    For anyone interested in the situation in Somalia with and without a government, you may be interested to read "Stateless in Somalia and Loving It" and similar articles which describe how the non-governed Somalis enjoy greater peace and security than they did previously, and among other services they have functioning (competing) law courts and reliable cellular telephone service with the cheapest rates in the world (thanks for nothing, CRTC). You may not wish to move to Somalia but it's an excellent example of how life becomes more tolerable the less one is governed by monopolistic thugs.

  3. Apryl says:

    After the election, there were so many pundits and commentators who were saying that in the 2016 election, the Republicans were going to have to find some better candidates to run so that there would be a chance at winning the White House. I think that's a bit shortsighted of them. Regardless of Mitt Romney's faults, he didn't lose because of those faults. The American Dream is a tough sell to those who've enjoyed living off of everyone else's American Dream. When you promise to give people nothing but the opportunity to work for their own stuff, it pales in comparison to the glittery promises of other people's stuff. We don't need new candidates (though I'm not opposed to that–I'm no fan of Romney or McCain), we need a new electorate. But those who want other people's stuff aren't the only problem, though….

    I made an offhand comment to this effect to to a fellow faculty member, and he glared at me and said, "Yeah, that's why I voted for him. I want stuff" It gave me pause. Why, then, would a man who has a combined six-figure income vote for Obama? I'm still working that out, but the best thing I can come up with is that those who don't need other people's stuff think they are being benevolent to those whom he presumed needed other people's stuff. (That and the fact that when he found out I was a conservative libertarian, he immediately remarked, "So, you hate poor people, then?") And what better way to help "those in need" than to give them the stuff that belongs to other non-needy people. They feel good doing it, and it absolves them of any actual responsibility to their fellow man. "I pay my taxes" becomes the salve to their conscience that conservatives typically receive by giving their time and treasure directly to those they deem worthy of charity.

  4. Guest says:

    This is quite a beating you're taking dopameme! As an american living in Canada, and Quebec no less, I can attest to the awfulness of the health care. I cannot get a doctor and have to cross the river to Ontario to see one where I pay a fee to do so. If i wanted to see a doctor on the Quebec side, I would have to get in line at a local clinic at around 5 a.m. and wait for the doors to open at nine, and hope I was one of the first 30 patients without a doctor, in order to be able to see a doctor. If i was lucky enough to make the cutoff, I would then proceed to wait another 2 to 3 hours to see a doctor for 10 to 15 minutes.sounds fun, huh?

    I once had a head trauma injury and I went to the ER where I waited for 13 hours to be seen. Socialized health care is wonderful!!!

  5. dopameme says:

    The writer needs to get out more. It's always funny to me that people with concerns like this are always writing from the countries with the strongest social safety nets. Countries that are always the most first world with the best living conditions and opportunity while we don't often hear writers complaining about these things from countries with the weakest or no social safety net and infrastructure because all of those places are third world hell holes. The same thing is true within the states in the U.S. You can criticize places like "Taxachusetts" or "The People's Republic of (insert state that wealthy people or people wanting to become wealthy would actually choose to live in here)" but honestly, would you actually want to live and work in the comparatively libertarian utopia of Mississippi? The fact that this writer is writing from a Canadian think tank only emphasizes that point.

    But I hear Somalia with no functioning government whatsoever is looking for entrepreneurs and copywriters who get side checks from wingnut welfare think tanks. Freed from an oppressive social safety net and taxes at Clinton Era rates that country is about to become a real player in international business.

    • Redmond says:

      "The fact that this writer is writing from a Canadian think tank only emphasizes that point."

      Hi Dopameme

      You are hilarious. I think you need to get out more. For the record, the writer is American and currently resides in the USA.

      Also for the record, Canada is now higher than the USA on the "Economic Freedom Index", no thanks to our "Social Safety Nets". Ask the Average Canadian who has had an serious interaction with the Socialized Medical System how wonderful they think it is.

      Add to that the fact that it is current;y bankrupting us with 50% of the provincial budget of Ontario going to Medicine and Interest on debt. There are in fact several companies that specialize in getting Canadians OUT of Canada for medical services so they don't DIE on waiting lists. A common occurrence.

      Countries that are always the most first world with the best living conditions and opportunity while we don't often hear writers complaining about these things from countries with the weakest or no social safety net and infrastructure because all of those places are third world hell holes.

      You don't seem to understand that the quality of life in "first world countries" (by the way, are you including Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Ireland in that list? or are they now third world hell-holes?) is solely based on Private Property and the Rule of Law, which enables capital accumulation in the hands of entrepreneurs and capitalists.

      These Third world hell-holes that you describe do not have those features and on top of that are nominally socialist to a high degree.

      the "Somalia" straw man is laughable, please do not continue to use it – it has no relevance to the discussion that we are currently having at the Mises Institute of Canada.

      Of course progress is not a one way street – the further that Canada strays away from the principles that enabled us to create our quality of life, the more we will destroy our accumulated capital and that will inevitably result in a decline of the quality of life. Just ask Argentine how they went from one of the richest countries in the world to an economic basket case.

      The "social safety nets" that you describe are due to the statist/socialist nature of the last one hundred years of the ruling class in the west – it was born in Bismarck's Germany in the 19th century and is now dying a tortured death in Europe. it was a case of the governments attempting to offer the voting public something for nothing. And in the end nothing is what they will get.

      All of the "social services" of welfare state in the west were provided privately by the market before the government decided to monopolize them – there was no need for them to be provided by the state except for the fact that they wanted to have more power of the lives of the populace, in some cases to further social engineering goals, in other cases it was simply a case of bad economics and grants of privilege to special interest groups.

      Please dopameme, do some deeper reading before you comment so carelessly.

      Redmond

      • dopameme says:

        I think you are talking about what you want to believe in the cases of Europe's fiscal problems rather than what is actually true. Greece is the only one of those countries who's predicament is close to what you describe. The rest are mishmash of issues with the most important being a very short sighted common currency founding that wasn't set up in a way to deal with massive account imbalances and regionalized recessions from things like housing and banking collapses. Not to mention that the countries WITHIN Europe that are doing the best during the crisis are the ones with MORE of a social safety net. You know, the ones the right USED to bash like Northern Europe and Scandanavia before they found scapegoats in the much less modern economies of southern Europe.

        Your point about the Canadian health care system is also what you would like to believe rather than what is true. Canadians respond quite positively to their "interactions with socialized medicine" in poll after poll. Do they think it's perfect? Of course not, but you should know that Americans rank near the bottom of every poll amongst 1st world nations in satisfaction with their health care system. Nations with universal coverage consistently rank the highest.

        As far as social safety nets being provided by privately beforehand, this is pure fantasy. Are we talking about Victorian England or Depression Era U.S.?

        The fact is the greatest economic growth this world has ever seen coincided with countries realizing they could combine the economic engine of capitalism with a social safety net that allowed for the creation of a middle class.

        And the Somalia comparison is relevant. There is literally no functioning government in a failed state as that, yet for some reason they're not part of the G20. It's obviously an extreme, but it's not irrelevant. They world is way too complicated to have ready as an answer to every single problem be lower taxes and less social services.

        • Redmond says:

          “I think you are talking about what you want to believe in the cases of Europe's fiscal problems rather than what is actually true. Greece is the only one of those countries who's predicament is close to what you describe.”

          What I want to believe?
          http://earlywarn.blogspot.ca/2012/09/piigs-unemplhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/world/europe/huhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisi

          Not to mention that the countries WITHIN Europe that are doing the best during the crisis are the ones with MORE of a social safety net. You know, the ones the right USED to bash like Northern Europe and Scandanavia before they found scapegoats in the much less modern economies of southern Europe.

          Ahhh the myth of the utopian Social democratic welfare states – you obviously need to do further reading. The Scandinavian countries, you’ll note are not part of the Euro.

          Also Sweden has been under a “right” leaning government for some time now, and in fact they began cutting their welfare state a long time ago. And Sweden has not been without it’s share of troubles – major ones in fact. http://mises.org/daily/2259

          “Your point about the Canadian health care system is also what you would like to believe rather than what is true.”

          I live in Canada, I talk to Canadians, I have interfaced with the healthcare system, I know what it is like.
          “Canadians respond quite positively to their "interactions with socialized medicine" in poll after poll.”

          Oh Really?

          “Canadians are unhappy with the current Medicare system” http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/08/16/4094….

          And that was from 2004 – wait times haven’t gotten any better. A cat or dog can get an MRI in an hour a human has to wait 6 months.

          People enjoy thinking that they don’t have to worry about their healthcare – that is of course, until they actually need it. Also it is drilled into their heads that it is the most wonderful system in the world from birth basically.

          Also, looking at a country like Sweden – they actually have a parallel private healthcare system – more free than Canada!

          “As far as social safety nets being provided by privately beforehand, this is pure fantasy. Are we talking about Victorian England or Depression Era U.S.?”

          Canada pre-socialized medecine

          Canada pre-unemployment insurance

          Canada pre-social democratic welfare state – it isn’t all that old.

          As for the depression, that was created by the US federal government in it’s attempt to “intervene” and “fix” the problem.

          By the way, not one bank failed in Canada during the great depression and we did not have a central bank.

          “The fact is the greatest economic growth this world has ever seen coincided with countries realizing they could combine the economic engine of capitalism with a social safety net that allowed for the creation of a middle class.”

          False – the greatest economic growth occurred in the 19th century from 1800 to 1900. We now live in a hampered market economy. Growth in real terms stopped in the USA in the 1970s after the USA fully abandoned the Gold Standard. Real wages have stagnated in the USA and Canada.

          And why did the USA abandon the Gold standard? The massive expansion of the welfare state under Johnson and the Vietnam war.

          And the Somalia comparison is relevant. There is literally no functioning government in a failed state as that, yet for some reason they're not part of the G20.

          Again, it isn’t you take a basket case country on a basket case continent and think that it represents a “libertarian model”? Straw man Pure and simple.

          You might want to note that Somalia was run by communists before it fell completely apart.

          They world is way too complicated to have ready as an answer to every single problem be lower taxes and less social services.

          Again, you have not read deeply enough, you have nothing but straw men and half-truths to try and prove your point.

          Again, stop believe the hype of Huffington post and the NYT, and please look at what we are actually proposing.

          • dopameme says:

            I'm violating my usual policy of "backing away slowly" when I encounter a Goldbug. But screw it.

            I wasn't referring to Greece being the only country in trouble in Europe, I was referring to to it being the only one of the countries you cited as being caused by pre-crisis deficit problems. The fact is the that Germany has a much bigger welfare state and was running a much bigger deficit than Ireland and Spain and Italy before the account balances crisis. In fact, wasn't Ireland the poster boy for de-regulation and low taxes but a few years ago?

            I respect your anectdotal evidence of you and your friends about the Canadian healthcare system but even in that article you linked to you'll see that by large majorities Canadians don't want to scrap the current system.

            Seriously, you're citing the 1800's as an economic model? Were slaves counted in the GDP per capita? Then you skip ahead to 1980 and mention that since then real wages have been stagnant and blame leaving the Gold Standard as the cause? Man, this is crazeeee land. I mean, falling tax rates on upper income, de–regulation of multiplle industries, the dissapearance of labor unions, globalization and cheap labor abroad… and you go with the Gold Standard?

          • Redmond says:

            I'm violating my usual policy of "backing away slowly" when I encounter a Goldbug. But screw it.
            So, you retreat to ad-hominems, not surprising – I guess this means I win.

            I wasn't referring to Greece being the only country in trouble in Europe, I was referring to to it being the only one of the countries you cited as being caused by pre-crisis deficit problems.

            Not True

            But with the help of JPMorgan, Italy was able to do more than that. Despite persistently high deficits, a 1996 derivative helped bring Italy’s budget into line by swapping currency with JPMorgan at a favorable exchange rate, effectively putting more money in the government’s hands. In return, Italy committed to future payments that were not booked as liabilities.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global

            The fact is the that Germany has a much bigger welfare state and was running a much bigger deficit than Ireland and Spain and Italy before the account balances crisis.

            That may be, but of course Germany didn’t wreck it’s economy by chasing after the mirage of the “green economy” although they have done plenty of damage by doing so.

            By the way, it turns out Spains actual Debt to GDP Ratio is 146%
            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/spains-real-debt-gd

            In fact, wasn't Ireland the poster boy for de-regulation and low taxes but a few years ago?

            Certainly not my poster boy. Apart from the fact that they have a central bank distorting the entire economy, there was precious little deregulation in Ireland

            The Irish government now has a controlling interest in such industries as public transport,[1]electricity generation and transmission,[2] and broadcasting media (radio and television).[3]Government controls have largely stifled independent providers of key services, though some private sources do exist, precipitating the tremendous size of the public and civil services.
            The welfare-state system stretches further still, into education ("free" primary, secondary, and university education), state pensions, and public-health assistance.[4] All of these services make for a massive budget.

            I respect your anectdotal evidence of you and your friends about the Canadian healthcare system but even in that article you linked to you'll see that by large majorities Canadians don't want to scrap the current system.

            All things come to those who wait. Ontario is currently in the process of delisting numerous services and freezing doctors wages. Quebec is a basket case with patients literally dying in the hallways of their hospitals. It is all very good that Canadians have bought the propaganda(I don’t think they buy it) but the changes will be forced on them – this system will come under more pressure as the baby boomers age.

            But speaking of following the European model, I am all for it.
            http://www.iedm.org/37744-germany-proves-private-

            For the past two decades, hundreds of hospitals have been privatized in Germany. The number of private for-profit hospitals grew by about 90%, whereas the number of public hospitals decreased by 43%. Today, roughly one-third of German hospitals are private for-profit.
            The statistical data from Germany show that private for-profit hospitals provide better quality care in several areas, as compared to public and private not-for-profit hospitals. For example, they admit patients faster than other types of hospitals and have the highest average length of stay, even though the same flat sums are paid for patients by the public insurance. This means that contrary to widespread fears, they do not cut corners by discharging patients who are not healthy enough.

          • Redmond says:

            You continue

            Seriously, you're citing the 1800's as an economic model?

            The prevalence of free trade and few barriers to immigration were wonderful – and the relative improvement in the quality of life from 1800 to 1900 is unimaginable today.

            Were slaves counted in the GDP per capita?

            1.GDP did not exist as an index in the 19th century
            2.Slavery ended in the British empire in 1833 and they reaped the benefits. Slavery ended in the USA in 1865 and the period of greatest economic growth occurred in the USA after that, bar none.

            Then you skip ahead to 1980 and mention that since then real wages have been stagnant and blame leaving the Gold Standard as the cause?

            1.I didn’t skpi ahead.
            2.The gold standard ended in 1971, not 1980.
            3.I didn’t say it was the cause, but thanks for trying to put words into my mouth. And yes, the unrestricted ability to print money is a bad thing and exacerbated any of the issues you raise.

            Man, this is crazeeee land.

            Only to someone with no understanding of the importance of sound money, and a complete ignorance of the monetary history of the world.

            I mean, falling tax rates on upper income,

            A good thing.

            de–regulation of multiplle industries

            There has been little to no deregulation in the USA – there are far more laws on the books today than there have ever been. There are over 100 agencies that regulate the financial markets alone.

            the dissapearance of labor unions

            They dug their own grave, and they have far from disappeared – especially in the public sector, where they are doing tremendous long term damage.

            Globalization

            Extending the global division of labour is a wonderful thing, I am not surprised that you are against it though.

            cheap labor abroad…

            You are against people in foreign countries raising their living standards? I have been to China their quality of life has risen fantastically compared to 30 years ago
            .
            and you go with the Gold Standard?

            As I said, you need to read up on your history and economics.

            You could start here
            http://mises.org/document/6785/Economics-in-One-L

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.