President Obama acknowledged some small signs of hope, but reminded everyone that we are a long way from a full recovery. He said, “way off in the distance, we can see a vision of an America's future that is far different than our troubled economic past.”
This is true, but the next thing he said was even better. He said, "We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand.” … "We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest, where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad."
This is right on the money. Savings and production are the only means to wealth as I have been talking about for years. Yet I’m confused to hear Obama say this and do the exact opposite. It doesn’t make sense.
No one in America wants to hear ‘save and invest’ and stop ‘borrowing and spending’ and start living on the budget with a limited income. Therefore, I suspect that this part of his speech was not for us, but for foreign nations whom are losing confidence in the dollar and Obama’s plan to sell them Treasury Bonds.
I suspect that this was strategically put into this speech just to help build faith in the dollar and avoid the currency crisis in the dollar that is brewing.
Then, if this was not shocking enough, Obama said a complete recovery depends on two things: 1) building a new foundation for the U.S. economy and 2) making changes in the political landscape.
The new economic foundation needs to be build on savings and production, while he is printing and spending like never before in history. The political changes that we need are to elect an entirely new leadership that is fiscally responsible and will lead the nation by saving and investing and a massive reduction in government so that production can accelerate, which again is exactly opposite as the government is expanding in all directions.
Obama’s prognosis is the opposite of his monetary policy. Is he preparing the nation for a reserve direction in monetary policy or is he just talking about what would be the right thing to do?