It’s no longer speculation or academic debate, the United States has sacrificed principles in order to save the economy.

“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse…I am sorry we’re having to do it, I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is not a, you know, a huge economic crisis. Look, we’re in a crisis now. I mean, this is — we’re in a huge recession, but I don’t want to make it even worse.”

One thing I have learned about government is this: when government takes away a right, freedom or principle from the people it governs, it is very hard to, if unlikely, persuade that the government to give that right, freedom or principle back to the people.

It is becoming very clear the “Car Czar” will be involved with price setting or product selection, which is not a free market practice, and add government ownership to major financial institutions and the United States is that much closer to a socialist economy – much like China.

So, let’s a return the discussion back to the world of academia. To use a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

Can this quote also apply to the theory of the free-market economy?

Think about this – is a country only deserving of capitalism or free-market principles only when the times are good, or should that country apply the same theories at all times, regardless of the potential impact on society?

I want to pull out one comment President Bush said:

“Look, we’re in a crisis now. I mean, this is — we’re in a huge recession, but I don’t want to make it even worse.”

Has anyone bothered to ask the question about government interference in the economy? What is the long term impact of near zero percent interest rates? How will government dictation of what products to sell change business moving forward? How will the huge debt interfere with the ability to deal with social security?

Changing horses midstream may actually cause more harm than good, yet no one seems to be talking about it. Sacrificing free-market practices and principles today may cause more economic problems tomorrow, and chances are we will never regain the free-market principle of the past.

Leading into the VP debate I saw two things consistently – the press set expectations so low everyone expected Palin to fail and some of the public was claiming they could have done a better job in the debate (and the debate hadn’t even taken place yet).

Gone were the expectations that Palin was going to wipe the floor with Biden or that she was going to show off her expert political ability, no, most people were expecting a train wreck of James Stockdale proportions…. and that is why, it seemed, the majority of people were tuning in but it didn’t happen.  Frankly, not much of anything happened.  So what was the hour of talk all about then?

There was minimal sparring at best, neither candidate directly answered questions to any substantive degree, Biden came off as slightly arrogant while Palin had an appearance of acting too sweet, and there was nothing presented by either camp to advance their position.  All and all, a good waste of time.

I cannot see how the performance yesterday would have helped (or harmed) either party.  Biden didn’t look “Vice Presidential”, nor did Sarah.  Neither individual provided energy for the base, neither really swayed voters or pundits….   Yesterday was, truly, just “Ho Hum”