pages

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Policy Continuity and Continuity Revision, Retroactive continuity

Travis Norton on President Clinton's Democrat National Convention 2012 speech:
Okay folks, I had enough of Bill Clinton's revised economic history speech. In economic terms, the 1990s was a decade that loosened banking regulations and allowed "fractional reserve lending to rapidly grow from 10 to 1, to 100 to 1, and then to over 1,000 to 1." It's now 10,000 to 1. What does this mean? It means the Federal government pumped trillions of dollars into the economy, allowed for more student loans, home loans, and gave the US economy a brief bump of prosperity. Then in 2007...well we all know how that ended the fairy tale economy.

Basically President Clinton raised the credit limit on America's credit card knowing damn well that America's economy wouldn't even be able to pay the minimum monthly balance, hence the US Government currently borrowing more money each month just to pay off it's debt. Imagine using a credit card to pay the monthly minimum payment on another credit card. CRAZY, HUH!

So when you hear the Democrats advocating to increase America's credit card limit for more student loans and mortgages, be scared. Very, very scared
I did not see the speech. I imagine there is a bit of continuity revision. There are two points to make derived from this analysis, if not the speech.

The first is that we should see all of this less as history and more as continuity because we are talking about policy more than human events. Bills passed lead into laws for following administration.

The second point is that these employees of ours, as Clint Eastwood said, are stewards of wealth and resources and power. Certain politicians see the power as theirs and the choices as theirs. In the end they report that they made stuff happen, regardless of whose property was wielded to make stuff happen. The other kind see it as their responsibility but not their material.

Addressing the first point, only briefly, the simple fact is that a bill passed into law under one administration leads into events occurring "under the watch" of another.