Obama Economic Advisor Addresses the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's Job Impact (VIDEO)

---

Dagma Strike February 6, 2009 8:57 am (Pacific time)

Recently, I’ve read an interesting article linked to your issue American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan from Med Yones, "one of the few who forecasted the US economic crisis. He has an impressive statement concerning Osama’s policy, announcing the economy recovery in 2010. For additional information go to http://www.ceoqmagazine.com/2009Q1/economics/economicrecoveryplan/index.htm

---

Lena Jost February 3, 2009 2:26 pm (Pacific time)

Recently, I’ve read an interesting article linked to your issue American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan from Med Yones,

---

Henry Ruark January 18, 2009 8:12 pm (Pacific time)

C.J.: You wrote: "Going by these fake economists logic- if the government spent 10 trillion wouldn't that result in around 0% unemployment? Why don't we then? Isn't that evil and oppressive not to just print up enough money for everyone to have plenty?" Friend CJ, that phrasing shows clearly your misinterpretation and thus misunderstanding of how this or any similar capitalist economy actually works. No room here for complex dialog to explain, but that is brute fact. See with own eyes in Samuelson or similar texts on macroeconomics; for direct dialog ID to Editor and we can learn more from each other. Thank you for participation, and keep on probing and demanding answers, self-found or from others !!

---

Henry Ruark January 16, 2009 11:44 am (Pacific time)

Friend Chris et al: Re-reading your entire thread indicates you meant review from Amazon to cover Krugman's new book. I understood it to be for Samuelson. Check indicates all I wrote applies equally to Krugman, and yours-written as here shows that clearly: "We are doomed if people keep listening to these Keynesian court jesters." FYI, Keynes sure to go down in history far more than either of us, already proven to be correct in every crisis since he first wrote. Yours applied-to-him via slash at K's book proves point even more than when rubbed on the Samuelson version, which is even-handed and balanced re four basic approachesd but surely strongest re proven Keynesianism. Reagan experience and its consequences alone provide strongest proof yet felt. See upcoming Op Ed on Economics for more; ID to Editor for direct if open to full further dialog.

---

Henry Ruark January 16, 2009 10:49 am (Pacific time)

C. Jones: Did you also check out the other competing-column for Amazon reviews ? That's standard there, which you obviously prefer not to disclose here, since you do not mention nor cite from ones available opposing yours. IF so you will find absolutely opposite viewpoint to yours well-expressed, too. But nothing can offset fact the Samuelson book is in its 18th Edition since '48, well established as standard for usage in widespread diversity of schools, colleges and university and corporate work, as I know from usage. You also wrote:"It overall seems to represent a neo-Marxist worldview. I would read von Mises Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Murphy The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Capitalism (Politically Incorrect Guides), Gwartney Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity or Hayek The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek) as a "counterweight." Your words (re "neo-Marxist") reveal, intermittently or otherwise, your own personal beliefs, to which you are entitled. BUT what constitutes that stance is NOT feeling, but fact, not reflected in the book's content despite what YOU may see there. Then you stated a whole group supporting your own feeling, but not necessarily describing the Samuelson book (impossible since many published prior to his, as for Hayek.) Yes, I am familiar with your whole list, from which I can draw statements here supported by quotes, citations, and even reviews, as of when-published, a critical fact you seem to have overlooked, as for Hayek, now widely discredited internationally. SO you pay your nickel and state what you happen to feel, and I'll stick with what I know from longterm examination not only of Samuelson but of those you listed. Thank you for participation, and our dialog should surely extend and strengthen interest in fact of diametrical opposition in viewpoint, expressed widely in economics, controlled by "assumptions" demanded by each school of economists. That's what this channel should bring to its readership. See upcoming Op Ed for further dialog/description and some properly-informed opinion.

---

ChrisJones January 15, 2009 5:27 am (Pacific time)

Ruark: Why don't I just post this review for it on amazon. This book is filled with ideology. The authors -although one of them is a Nobel laureate seem not to understand Adam Smith. From the first page on they make the case for massive government intervention. They go so far as to say that government intervention 1. increases efficiency (sic!) - although they don't explain how, 2. promotes equity by PROMOTING COMPETION - how would a government EVER do that and not the opposite? Governments intervene because they DON'T WANT COMPETITION, and that 3. Government intervention fosters macroeconomic stability-REDUCING UNEMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION (sic!!). Goverments are the very ones who cause inflation by uncontrolled increase of money supply (printing money out of thin air) and they cause unemployment by putting massive burdens on businesses...of course only to achieve "social equity." What Interventionists don't understand is that by putting heavy tax burdens and legal restrictions on businesses they harm the very consumer whom they say they want to help. What do we think, who pays the additional tax burden and the cost for all government regulation...it's us again - with higher prices for the products. How naive are we? I agree that the book is didactically extremely well written but that's exaclty what makes it so dangerous. It overall seems to represent a neo-Marxist worldview. I would read von Mises Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Murphy The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Capitalism (Politically Incorrect Guides), Gwartney Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity or Hayek The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek) as a "counterweight."

---

Henry Ruark January 14, 2009 11:26 am (Pacific time)

C-Jones et al: Your intensity appreciated, sir, with good reason on your part, I'm sure. Factually you fall flat on face; you misinform re Krugman by misunderstanding, and show appalling other signs of solid neglect on economic history, for the Keynesian statement. FYI, seek out any edition of Samuelson's MACROECONOMICS, and seek some salvation by simply reading the Preface. That'll start the process now obviously demanded for you, with his standard text since 1948, now in its 18th edition, as the sensible means to check out what you've missed somehow in both life experience and any other preparation. Start with definition of the simple term "assumption", far different from the kind you make here.

---

ChrisJones January 13, 2009 9:27 pm (Pacific time)

Going by these fake economists logic- if the government spent 10 trillion wouldn't that result in around 0% unemployment? Why don't we then? Isn't that evil and oppressive not to just print up enough money for everyone to have plenty? We are doomed if people keep listening to these Keynesian court jesters. But the powers that be have to make the economic system fail to prove marx right. Everything they are doing is making it worse. But I guess that's the point. And they have you all begging for it lol. Thanks geniuses. Enjoy serfdom.

---

ChrisJones January 13, 2009 9:13 pm (Pacific time)

Welcome to hyperinflationland kiddies. Its gonna be a wild ride. The fed is already monetizing debt. Hey let's listen to this guy krugman who says we can just SPEND our way to prosperity and right out of the depression. WoW! Who would've ever thought it would be that easy! Ok government yes borrow another one hundred thousand dollars in my name this year again by threatening my elected representatives with martial law. Heck, may as well make it a million per american! Make sure you don't send any of that cash my way though because non central planners like myself are obviously too stupid and irresponsible to actually use my own money myself for what I need. I don't know what I would do without my GREAT SAVIORS! So wise. So benevolent. They would never hurt us.

---

Henry Ruark January 13, 2009 11:27 am (Pacific time)

Friend Stephen: Do seek to be "timely", known as "on nose of news" in the business. If awkwardly done, might seem to be shifting in the wind. But then, friend, the wind itself is shifting these days, as you point out. Re yrs on forward-insight, welcome to the world and hope to do as well as it grows much more complex. Flat-on-face is by far the usual posture for most pundits, sooner or later. Thanks for insights and source information; you trigger ref. to some strong new information which I'll share soon. Keep yours coming, helps us all and me particularly to see trustworthy reaction to which we need to respond by how we do what we do. Re economics, watch for next O Ed with emphasis on assumption as foundation, unavoidable and clarifying re tribes involved.

---

stephen January 12, 2009 3:30 pm (Pacific time)

In closing..it seems as you do have a handle on economics.. 30 years. Brittenwood, 1971. infowars.com and whatreallyhappened.com are good additions to a persons study. Far from perfect, for many reasons, but good websites to take a few minutes now and then. Peter Schiff is another good study. Dailypaul.com is also good. Besides the "change with the wind" rhetoric, from my previous comment, I think I am doing better with my posts :-) I'll keep trying.

---

stephen January 12, 2009 3:22 pm (Pacific time)

Henry..please forgive me if I am wrong. But it seems as though you change your thought processes depending on which way the wind changes. This is not a personal attack, this is what I have read from what you write. I have stuck to my guns. For instance: here is obama's words today. I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast this morning. “Everybody’s going to have to give.” I dont blog well, I am not a charming black man, and I am skinny. But I do NOT lie. 8 months ago, I used my same frustrated blogging to say this is exactly what obama would say come January 2009. I can not prove that I posted blog after blog saying this, because I did not save them. As gentleman to gentleman, I hope you believe me, even with my other faults. My question is..if silly ol Stephen knew this was coming, how did the next president of the U.S. know it was not coming? The answer is, he knew it was coming, but lied to become president. There is no way "I" knew this, and he didnt. In regards to this article you wrote.. excellent, and I agree 100% Seems as tho you are a day late and a dollar short. Still XLNT article..thanks. Everyone has to "give" while he and the bankers are on their vacations? I think not.

---

Henry Ruark January 12, 2009 8:00 am (Pacific time)

To all: Never forget it took us more than THIRTY YEARS of carefully corporate-induced apathy to misdirected economic, social and cultural misinformation to allow ourselves to sink as far as we did. That noise machine was far more effective for far longer than most citizens even now understand. Never forget, either, pundits like Krugman (whom I trust and admire) have reputation to retain via direct criticism --honest or otherwise--of what national leaders are allowed to do by a Congress now heavily surrounded (100 to 1) by corporate-campaign-funding lobbyists and heavy-hitting legal counsels laying it on ayer-by-layer, with fees built on layer-count. SO sensible surveillance and solid citizen participation is the only possible remedy we have left, with democracy now literally hanging by those threads. Let your voice be heard, loud and often, wherever common sense tells you it can have solid impact, including the now-open Oregon Legislature.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.