>Your equating George W. Bush with FDR is spot-on ("Franklin
>Delano Bush," October 20). Both presidents recklessly increased
>government's role in the economy
This seems to me a pretty silly and a-historical comparison. The problems in
the economy at the moment are not the fault of "recklessly increased
government" intervention, but of the reckless de-regulation of industries and
the stupid policy of allowing some "private" enterprises to become so large and
control such a large percentage of the ecomony, without any effective oversight
or regulation, that their success or failure effects the well being of everyone
in the country. Any institution that is that large and has that much power to
effect the well being of so many people is no longer a "private" concern. And
when Roosevelt interceded in the economy, he did so with massive work and
welfare programs aimed at protecting the weakest and most negatively impacted
portions of society -- the poor. I haven't seen anything like that from Bush.
Perhaps its not capitalism that deserves the blame for this, but it is
certainly the case that the free-market fundamentalists have had
their chance to put their policies into practice and see the results. Even
Greenspan, the high priest of the free market and Laissez-faire policies,
admits that there is a flaw in the way he thought the world worked. His recent
testimony reminded me of the scene from Casablanca where Louie says "I am
shocked, shocked to find out there is gambling going on in here."
Comparing Bush to FDR is a superficial, empty comparison.
Olin
----- Original Message -----
From: John Williams<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: Franklin Delano Bush
Dear Editor:
Your equating George W. Bush with FDR is spot-on ("Franklin
Delano Bush," October 20). Both presidents recklessly increased
government's role in the economy - a move that proved (in FDR's
case) and will prove (in Bush's case) to do nothing but saturate the
economy with such uncertainty as to frighten away entrepreneurs and
investors.
But popular history will almost surely remember Bush, not as a
second FDR, but as a second Herbert Hoover. The myth will be made
that Bush was a staunch free-marketeer who was succeeded in the
Oval Office by a charismatic saint whose hyperactive interventions
saved the economy (even though precious little evidence of economic
salvation will appear in the data). History will forget Bush's
interventions just as it has forgotten Hoover's - as it has
forgotten that Hoover signed the largest tariff hike in U.S.
history; as it has forgotten that Hoover tried to create jobs by
deporting hundreds of thousands of Mexicans; as it has forgotten
that Hoover signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the
Federal Home Loan Bank Act, and created the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation; as it has forgotten that, with the Revenue Act of 1932,
Hoover raised the top marginal tax rate on personal incomes from
25 percent to 63 percent (in addition to raising the corporate-tax
rate).
History will repeat itself, blaming capitalism for a problem caused
and intensified by government interventions.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l<http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l>
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
