Posted on 12/16/2008 3:08:12 PM PST by Star Traveler
There is no comparison with our current economy and the type of economy that Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy had during WWII (and to some degree the US during WWII). 70% of the US economy is still consumer spending, which is about what it was before 9/11. Despite two concurrent wars, the economy never became more capital intensive, mainly because a large portion of the public never thought we were at war, anyway, and never changed their consumption patterns. Having the President tell people to go out and shop as a patriotic act didn’t help.
I don’t think that GWB is out to destroy the economy. But he will do so by trying to save it. There is no escape from the economic tough love that we are just now starting to experience. The pain is deserved, and is the result of government, businesses, and consumers attempting to live beyond their means. By trying to prevent the natural destruction and liquidation from occuring, the government will just prolong the pain, as it did in the last Great Depression.
I think they are doing the right thing and BECAUSE we are at war. Tough-love economics at this moment sounds SUPERB, but in theory. It would render a ton of people "vulnerable". People who run the companies which make the tools which human resources then utilize to keep American safe would / could be put at risk; therefore leaving the US with the inability to have the tools/resources to defend the US on multiple levels.
Pragmatic principles are superb; recognizing the entirety of the economic situation in a time of war is critical.
Just as a matter of pure argumentation: Forget we are yet at war. Let's pretend we aren't in several. Then, I'd be arguing exactly like most in this thread are arguing. The "risk" rate would be far lower which of course, then provides a latitude at what the free market could absorb the shock.
He and VP Cheney are not "destroying the village in order to save it". They are in fact "saving the village in order to destroy the enemy."
What is going on is very difficult for linear thinkers to grok, and that's understandable.
>>>Tough love, which most in this thread are arguing FOR, is exactly what induced the severity and longevity of the Great Depression.
You are absolutely wrong. You should read a history of the Great Depression instead of making statements like this. Both Hoover and FDR made massive interventions into the economy to ostensibly lessen the pain, but these “experiments” only made matters worse, extending what would have been a sharp but short recession into a lengthy period of stagnation (and mercifully, FDR died before he could completely snuff out individual liberty).
Tough love, which the Presidents of the 19th century allowed to happen, and the presidents of the totalitarian 20th did not, is the best course.
Whose version? The kinds of tinkerings done during the Great Depression were not at all like the ones being proposed now.
As I've written before, and I reiterate the point. We are in a war. To not intervene in this economic mess is beyond stupid. It presupposes that the terrorist network will just give America a "time-out" while they go through their "tough love" ness. Further, it opens up the more and succinct possibility of those parts of the global economy which haven't yet BEEN caught and frozen, won't just buy up those very businesses going into the tank.
I saw the YouTube where Neil Cavuto and Ben Stein argued. What was most clear to me? They weren't talking or addressing the same exact issue; no they were addressing different things and totally misunderstanding each other as a consequence.
It's possible you and I are doing the same.
I suspect, and please correct me, but you are referring to such ugly matters as social security, ad nauseum which FDR implemented. This was definitely a “closing the gate after the horses had fled” moment. At onset of the Depression, tough love “money/credit” restrictions was what fueled all that ensued, and was created. On this, you and I can agree.
No, I’m referring to the HOLC, the Emergency Relief Administration, Glass-Steagall I, and the stimulus package that Hoover implemented, as well as the NRA, AAA, Glass-Steagall II, PUHUA, TVA and WPA/CCC that FDR implemented (fortunately the NRA and AAA were struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional). SS enrollment wasn’t made mandatory until 1943.
Please read a book or two on the topic (not just a Wikipedia entry) and get back to me.
You could have just left your snarky last sentence off. But alas, you couldn’t help yourself, could you. Feel free to have the last word.
All right, that was asinine of me to write, and my intent was not to end our discussion. I was having an earlier discussion in the same thread with another FReeper that was a bit tedious, and I mistook you for the same person.
I’m not completely against government intervention in the economy.
History shows, I think, that it usually just solves a political problem for politicians rather than solving an economic problem for citizens. Further, it does impinge on individual liberty- I am taxed more heavily because I chose to be thrifty, and my money is given to failed businesses, or failed households with unsustainable financial practices.
Where is the justice in that? Preventing pain, but for whom? For the grasshoppers, not the ants. This tendency in our culture is becoming more pronounced.
Emotionally, however, you are lecturing to the choir here. me! lol.
History shows, I think, that it usually just solves a political problem for politicians rather than solving an economic problem for citizens. Further, it does impinge on individual liberty- I am taxed more heavily because I chose to be thrifty, and my money is given to failed businesses, or failed households with unsustainable financial practices.
You are right - there is no justice in that.
And, then what? I don't live in an ideal world. I do happen to live in the best country in the world, however. My property taxes are about to go up again. Fair? No. And because it isn't across the board.
However, I have made choices in life to not live as the "grasshoppers" do. And when I get taxed to pay for them to live, and they have the gall to complain or act badly in my presence, they become quite aware really quickly that they aren't even on my radar of people I wish to know.
I can look myself in the mirror knowing I'm no leech or parasite. It matters to me.
>>I can look myself in the mirror knowing I’m no leech or parasite. It matters to me.
I feel the same way; sometimes, this feeling is the only “justice” that seems to exist.
I recall discussing politics with a left-wing friend a year or so ago. We usually have friendly debates, but he was angered by my statement that welfare should be available for the needy (though only at the state or local level), yet there should be social discouragement against it- it should be considered shameful to be on the dole. And unfortunately his view, that welfare is a “right” and should be taken with conviction and pride, has supplanted the flinty self-reliance that built and sustained this country.
I see this change as an index of the decline of American culture, and perhaps Western culture, too.
You post perfectly illustrates the difference between morals (ethics) and rights, IME.
Someone I know was fired, although he had 401K assets, he used unemployment. Why? Because he was already paid into it. Therefore, he used an "asset" to help him through a time until he could find other work.
This, in a way, is a right, no? If he's paying into it, already, why shouldn't he use it. And, yes, there's some truth to that.
But then there are those who never pay (or have never paid) into unemployment, and yet live off it. And usually feel no shame. These people most often, IME, consider it a "right".
In order to clear these matters up, privatization of the markets must happen. And if only we could keep government and politicians from corrupting the free markets. You and I both know, I'm safely assuming, that should privatization of unemployment "insurance" happen, the government would find a way to give money away in those funds to those who've never contributed to the fund in the first place.
Welfare is not a "right" but certainly can be accessed by anyone should they want to. Perhaps, I think, this is what confuses so many people. They confuse "access" with "rights".
“That’s what Bush and Cheney are saying...”
And it’s BS.
You said — “And it’s BS.”
Don’t worry, Bush and Cheney won’t be there too much longer...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.