Saturday, February 14, 2009

The Dog Who Doesn't Bark




In the short story Silver Blaze, literature's most famous detective investigates the disappearance of a prize racehorse and an apparent murder in the Dartmoor region of Devonshire in southwest England. During this investigation, Sherlock Holmes learns that the animal was led out of his stall in the middle of the night and that the stable hand charged with guarding the thoroughbred had been drugged senseless. Nonetheless, there was a dog nearby that should have raised an alarm if any suspicious characters were lurking around, whether the stable boy was conscious or not. Had the dog also been drugged or otherwise silenced? This question led to one of fiction's greatest exchanges:





Inspector Gregory of Scotland Yard: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"



Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."



Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."



Holmes: "That was the curious incident."





The dog didn't bark because he recognized the man leading Silver Blaze out of the stable as John Straker, the horse's trainer. Mr. Straker was a bigamist whose second wife had very expensive tastes, and he intended to injure the animal so as to fix a major race for gamblers. He drugged the stable hand so he could lead the animal out into the dark unobserved, but unfortunately for him, the horse panicked and killed him accidentally, solving the suspected murder.





His Serene Loftiness has repeatedly and forcefully urged Congress and the American people to support the now-$789 billion spending bill presented for his signature. He has stated clearly that the economic crisis now upon us is the worst since the Great Depression and that the only remedy is massive government intervention paralleled on President Roosevelt's New Deal. The upheaval in the banking industry, predicated on the upheaval in the housing market, seems to validate the President's claim and unemployment stands at 7.6%, double the figure from April 2000 and the worst level since September 1992. But inflation barely registers at 0.09% (as of December 2008) and the Federal Reserve's prime lending rate stands at a miniscule 0.25%. Are these really the worst economic conditions we've faced in seventy-five years?





When Ronald Reagan assumed the Presidency in January 1981, the country was enduring a "double-dip" recession; that is, we had recovered from the recession that began in 1978 under President Carter and plunged into another. Unemployment stood at 7.5% and would peak at 10.8% in December 1982. Inflation, which had jumped as high as 14% under President Carter, was a still-dangerous 9.2%. The Federal Reserve, in an attempt to throttle said inflation, had increased the prime lending rate to an astonishing 21%, making credit extremely expensive even when it could be had. President Reagan's answer to this triple threat to the economy was to cut taxes, first in 1982 and again in 1986. By the time he left office in January 1989, the prime lending rate had settled to 10.5 % as inflation had been cut to an annual rate of 5.4%, and unemployment had also dropped to 5.4% as nearly twenty million jobs had been created. The effects of President Reagan's tax cuts and the Federal Reserve's tight control of money markets was to allow wage earners to keep more of their own money, that money held more of its value, jobs were created and prosperity returned across the board - the percentage of husbands of poor families working low-income jobs dropped 13.7% between 1979 and 1990.





Like the dog that didn't bark, the choicest clue is often the one we don't hear. It seems evident from the historical record that President Obama is simply lying when he omits this period of economic difficulty and recovery when he appeals for his "stimulus package." Why would he do so? Because to mention it would undercut the urgency, the absolute necessity of such colossal spending, as well as the purpose. If we have overcome worse economic troubles than what we currently face with different methods, and those methods succeeded wonderfully, it would seem logical to use those methods again, except that Mr. Obama is philosophically opposed to them. Cutting taxes is not what he's about, not what his liberal allies are about, and he will ignore the lessons of our own recent history and imperil us all rather than admit that a conservative principle is correct.

Similarly, while Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi and all the other usual suspects rail against the unbridled greed and arrogance and corruption on Wall Street, and grandstand on TV, raking corporate CEO's across the coals in Congressional hearings, you hear not a word about investigating Congress' role in launching the housing market crash. As discussed in earlier postings here, liberal Democrats decided to ingratiate themselves to their constituents in the 1990's by changing the laws to help bad credit risks obtain home mortgages, bullying HUD and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and everyone else with a dollar to lend to lend it to their cronies. As late as 14 July 2008, Rep. Frank stated, "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."

Of course, the Federal government seized control of both lending giants less than three months later after they lost about 80% of their value in nine months, costing taxpayers about $11 billion and sending shockwaves throughout the financial markets. But will someone, anyone, vigorously pursue Mr. Frank's responsibility for causing the financial panic, and the responsibility of his social engineering friends on the Hill? No. No, we will not. Doing so would bring the guilt and shame of this mess to their doorstep, so we will not see it. So as President Obama glories in this first legislative victory, pay attention, as Baker Street's most illustrious resident did, to what is not said, to what is not heard, to the dog who doesn't bark.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/treasury-set-bail-out-fannie/story.aspx?guid=%7B46D1439E-A2C4-418C-9BE0-09BE0B9EE60D%7D&dist=msr_7


Source: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm





Source: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/ratewatch/leading-rates.asp





Source: http://www.bls.gov/CPS/





Source: The Real Reagan Record, National Review, August 31, 1992

No comments: