The View From 1776

Upside Down Economics

Keynesian macroeconomics, espoused as scientific truth by Democrat/Socialists and RINOs, posits that two thirds of the economy is driven by consumer spending.  That doctrine, however, completely misrepresents whence comes the wherewithal for consumers to spend.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/25 at 03:41 PM
  1. Thomas,

    You have been fooled. That letter, supposedly written by Michael Crowley is a hoax. Look it up on Snopes.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/26  at  04:26 PM
  2. Love you, love the sentiment and intellectual fodder in the letter, but "ditto" to the previous response - see the Snopes analysis:
    Posted by Brian Kearsey  on  08/26  at  09:40 PM
  3. Brian,

    J. Jay appears correct that Snopes did expose the original Crowley letter as a hoax, at least superficially. As always, however, Jay presents only those parts of the story that support his political creed while conveniently ignoring contrary data. Either that or he stopped reading the Snopes article (or some less accurate referencing source) short of its conclusions once he’d found the word ‘hoax’. Understand, J. Jay is notoriously sloppy and lazy when it comes to fact-checking. If you read the Snopes exposé in its entirety, you will learn that Crowley is not the true author of the letter and that the letter is [most likely] a fictional account of a company forced by government (mainly Democrat) policies to lay off employees. Crowley admits having forwarded the letter to a McCain support group (in 2008); and, that some unknown person(s) later got hold of it (Snopes does not say a McCain operative), rearranged things to make it seem Crowley authored it, and then distributed it in corrupt form. Snopes regards Crowley’s report of the matter honest. Prior to that, the unsigned letter in circulation was likely regarded fictional (yet probable), and likely understood as political fodder by its readers. Ergo, the hoax, in this case, reduces to the forging of a signature and letterhead to make it appear more ‘real’ by a person or persons unknown.

    We don’t know from the Snopes article whether the original letter was intended as fact, hoax, satirical commentary, or an anonymous yet perfectly valid amalgam of federally inflicted-damage (of which there has been plenty going back many decades). Often these ‘open-letters’ begin as honest accounts only to be embellished by some of the hands through which they pass; each contributing some morsel of experience and compounding its bitter tone; and that is how any such highly circulated-letter should be regarded (i.e., suspect, yet containing grains of truth) unless or until authenticated. The appending of Crowley’s signature has muddied the waters, such that additional research should be done to identify the original letter and to see how that was presented (if still possible).

    The more interesting revelation Jay neglects to mention is that, after disowning the hoax letter, Crowley wrote an open-letter of his own critical of both parties as profligate spenders, bunglers, and business-killers that is especially damning of Obama as incompetent, punitive and intentionally destructive of enterprise. This Snopes 'authenticated’ letter mirrors most of the original’s criticisms, if not its bitterness. Crowley has, indeed, laid-off all his employees, but makes clear he does not blame them for having ‘voted wrongly’ (despite he clearly blames regulation for his company’s failure) the way the corrupted circular did. Though not the author of the hoax letter, Crowley clearly agreed with its content and political assumptions at the time he received it as evidenced by his willingness to forward it to others. He still appears to substantially agree with it. And, as this second letter indicates, the ill effects warned of in the hoax came to pass for him and his employees personally, and almost entirely as described.

    In point of fact, the Snopes article nowhere demonstrates the complaints, arguments or sentiments are themselves fraudulent, that it was the authorship, and only the authorship, which is exposed as a hoax. If Crowley affirms the accuracy of the original letter as to the negative impacts of Obama’s policies (and hyper-regulation generally), can we honestly call it a ‘hoax’, or should we, rather, regard it a highly accurate prognostication of a type any sensible folk will heed even as ideologues like J. Jay do all they can to confuse matters?

    To make this obvious even J. Jay can follow the logic, suppose President Obama claimed proxy-credit for [government] having created all the infrastructure of an entire country; discrediting, in the process, all the contributions of millions of private-sector individuals and entities. Upon close examination, however, it is revealed neither Obama nor government played more than a minor role in this infrastructure creation. We would then be justified in labeling Obama’s claim a ‘hoax of authorship’, one for which the real author is unknown and unknowable. Does this lack of identifiable authorship render the infrastructure itself a hoax? Clearly no, because the infrastructure, itself, is plain to see even when its authorship is disputed. So too are the ill-effects of a government grown all powerful, confiscatory, and intrusive into our personal affairs. Yet, that is precisely what J. Jay suggests [i.e., that Obama and government are not to blame], an he suggested it by misreporting the hoax without giving its full particulars and substance.

    Source links:
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/30  at  03:51 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.