Private companies are evil, why they must be eradicated [was: Franklin Delano Bush]

[Alberto Monteiro]

Jon Louis Mann wrote:
> 
> having worked in city, county, state and federal bureaucracies, i 
> recognize there is probably less accountability in government work,
>  but lately there has been a lack of a different dearth of 
> accountability in the private sector...
> 
I've worked in state-owned companies and a private company. In
my experience, there's _more_ waste, corruption, innefficiency and
stupid decisions in private companies than in g*vernment. My wife
shares the same experience with me.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Franklin Delano Bush

[Jon Louis Mann]

> >> The only reason the government makes bad decisions
>  is because it is  made up of people.
> >> The private sector is made up of people too.

> > The private sector is made up of MORE people, 
> and more involved people, both of which
> > tend to result in better decisions.

> So to get governments to make better decisions, 
> you would advocate  
> they employ many more people? What a facile 
> solution. I thought you knew better than that.
> Regards,
> Ray.

i rather doubt that the number of peple working is the problem.  i do believe 
we need a new, new deal, to put people back to work at gainful and productive 
work, such as rebuilding our infrastructure (instead of iraq's).

having worked in city, county, state and federal bureaucracies, i recognize 
there is probably less accountability in government work, but lately there has 
been a lack of a different dearth of accountability in the private sector... 

jon



  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Ray Ludenia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So to get governments to make better decisions, you would advocate
> they employ many more people?

No.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Ray Ludenia]

On Nov 9, 2008, at 7:05 AM, John Williams wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Wayne Eddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>>
>> The only reason the government makes bad decisions is because it is  
>> made up
>> of people.
>> The private sector is made up of people too.
>
> The private sector is made up of MORE people, and more involved
> people, both of which tend to result in better decisions.

So to get governments to make better decisions, you would advocate  
they employ many more people? What a facile solution. I thought you  
knew better than that.

Regards,

Ray.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Wayne Eddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There would be less government waste for certain, but I suspect there would
> be a comensurate increase in private sector waste.

No doubt that is true, if we define waste as not doing with other
people's money what Wayne wants. But if we talk about what each person
thinks should be done with their own money, then it is another story.

> The only reason the government makes bad decisions is because it is made up
> of people.
> The private sector is made up of people too.

The private sector is made up of MORE people, and more involved
people, both of which tend to result in better decisions.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Wayne Eddy]

> Of course, if the government spent less money, there would be less waste.

There would be less government waste for certain, but I suspect there would 
be a comensurate increase in private sector waste.

The only reason the government makes bad decisions is because it is made up 
of people.
The private sector is made up of people too.

Regards,

Wayne

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And on the basis of such acquiescence, the waste continues.

Of course, if the government spent less money, there would be less waste.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Dave Land]

On Nov 8, 2008, at 1:41 PM, John Williams wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
>> i have long wondered, dave, why the government does not spend out  
>> taxes more efficiently.
>
> I have long since stopped wondering and simply accepted that the
> government does not spend our money efficiently.

And on the basis of such acquiescence, the waste continues.

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i have long wondered, dave, why the government does not spend out taxes more 
> efficiently.

I have long since stopped wondering and simply accepted that the
government does not spend our money efficiently.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Franklin Delano Bush

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I have long used this as an argument for more, 
> rather than less government spending. When the
> government spends money like it did during WWII, 
>the  economy soars. And that's just buying things 
> that you KNOW are only going to be destroyed. 
> Imagine if the government spent like that for 
> things we need that will last.  
> And we'd have a highly stimulated economy.
> Dave

i have long wondered, dave, why the government does not spend out taxes more 
efficiently.  it is why i've run for city council here in santa monica 8 times. 
 we have over half a billion dollars in revenues for a city of about 86,000, 
located in approximately 8.6 sq. miles, much of which is soaked up by 
administration and bureaucratic waste.  santa monica would be a utopia if that 
budget was put to good use...
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Been there. Done that. Cantel, Guatemala. You?

I don't follow. I believe you are saying that you have worked
for Habitat for Humanity. By the way, good for you. Way to
follow through with your beliefs. But previously you implied
that the government should be helping people with better
houses. Do you think that Habitat for Humanity is not doing
a good job? Why would people who want to support better
houses for others prefer  their money going to  the
government rather than to HfH?

And I don't follow the "You?" either. Are you implying that I
should agree with you about wanting to give people
better homes? Or are you asking for a list of what charities
I have supported so we can have some weird sort of competition?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Dave Land]

On Nov 4, 2008, at 12:11 PM, John Williams wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Building someone a better house because
>> they need it is unwarranted government interference.
>
> Building someone a better house with my money is definitely
> unwarranted government interference. If you want to build people
> better houses so much, join (or donate) to Habitat for Humanity.

Been there. Done that. Cantel, Guatemala. You?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Building someone a better house because
> they need it is unwarranted government interference.

Building someone a better house with my money is definitely
unwarranted government interference. If you want to build people
better houses so much, join (or donate) to Habitat for Humanity. Don't
do it with my money.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Dave Land]

On Nov 4, 2008, at 10:31 AM, John Williams wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that our economy has changed, and we no longer get  
>> the kind of "war boost" that we got during WWII.
>
> Alas, makes one yearn for the old days when things were simpler and a
> good war could fix everything.

That would depend on whom one is. I have no such yearning. A strong  
economy is good, but not worth 10s of thousands of lives and  
destruction of cities and treasures. Rather than bombing the crap out  
of places and having to rebuild them (quite stimulating to the world  
economy though it is), we could carefully and systematically improve  
them.

But I guess dropping a bomb in someone's house because you hate them  
is The Good Work of Freedom™. Building someone a better house because  
they need it is unwarranted government interference.

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The problem is that our economy has changed, and we no longer get the kind of 
> "war boost" that we got during WWII.

Alas, makes one yearn for the old days when things were simpler and a
good war could fix everything.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Olin Elliott]

>Good thing we have the war in Iraq! I'm sure you are both voting for
>McCain, then?

The problem is that our economy has changed, and we no longer get the kind of 
"war boost" that we got during WWII.  Then, we were a heavy industrial economy 
and the massive build up of production was labor intensive and created millions 
of new jobs and massive stimulus.  Now, both the nature of our econmy and our 
military is totally different.  We don't have the massive industrial base to 
crank out tanks and airplanes at the rate we did then, creating all those new 
jobs.  And our military is no longer structured in that way, dependent on huge 
amounts of hardware.  So we can run an ongoing war (two of them actually) for 
many years and not see an increase in our production or our employment.  If 
anything, now the total opposite is true.  The wars are simply a drag on our 
econmy, funneling huge amounts of borrowed money and preventing us from 
spending on vital needs at home.

Olin

  - Original Message - 
  From: John Williams<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com> 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:21 AM
  Subject: Re: Franklin Delano Bush


  On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>> wrote:
  > On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Dan M wrote:
  >
  >> What is undisputed is that, as WWII started, the US rate dropped
  >> down to
  >> 9.9% in 1941, and dropped down below 2% from 43-45...as we were firmly
  >> in the war.  I'd argue that these data tends to favor Keynesian
  >> analysis, since the war involved overwhelming government
  >> intervention in
  >> the economy, massive federal deficits, etc.  Indeed, from a purely
  >> economic point of view this is wasteful government spending at its
  >> worth, spending billions upon billions on things that either blow
  >> themselves up or get blown up.  Yet, it was the foundation of the US
  >> being the economic powerhouse that it was during the next 60 or so
  >> years.
  >
  >
  > I have long used this as an argument for more, rather than less
  > government

  Good thing we have the war in Iraq! I'm sure you are both voting for
  McCain, then?
  ___
  
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l<http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Dan M wrote:
>
>> What is undisputed is that, as WWII started, the US rate dropped
>> down to
>> 9.9% in 1941, and dropped down below 2% from 43-45...as we were firmly
>> in the war.  I'd argue that these data tends to favor Keynesian
>> analysis, since the war involved overwhelming government
>> intervention in
>> the economy, massive federal deficits, etc.  Indeed, from a purely
>> economic point of view this is wasteful government spending at its
>> worth, spending billions upon billions on things that either blow
>> themselves up or get blown up.  Yet, it was the foundation of the US
>> being the economic powerhouse that it was during the next 60 or so
>> years.
>
>
> I have long used this as an argument for more, rather than less
> government

Good thing we have the war in Iraq! I'm sure you are both voting for
McCain, then?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Dave Land]

On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Dan M wrote:

> I think that the drop in unemployment from 1933 to 1937 is not the
> subject of much argument.  It's the reason for the following year's  
> rise
> back up to 19% that sparks the arguments.  Those who think that FDR  
> did
> more harm than good cite problems with profits, new labor laws that  
> made
> it easier to strike, etc.  Keynesians would argue that the balancing  
> of
> the Federal budget in 1938 was the cause, since deficits were still
> needed.
>
> What is undisputed is that, as WWII started, the US rate dropped  
> down to
> 9.9% in 1941, and dropped down below 2% from 43-45...as we were firmly
> in the war.  I'd argue that these data tends to favor Keynesian
> analysis, since the war involved overwhelming government  
> intervention in
> the economy, massive federal deficits, etc.  Indeed, from a purely
> economic point of view this is wasteful government spending at its
> worth, spending billions upon billions on things that either blow
> themselves up or get blown up.  Yet, it was the foundation of the US
> being the economic powerhouse that it was during the next 60 or so
> years.


I have long used this as an argument for more, rather than less  
government
spending. When the government spends money like it did during WWII, the
economy soars. And that's just buying things that you KNOW are only  
going
to be destroyed. Imagine if the government spent like that for things we
need that will last. We'd have had something like Japan's G-Cans project
to protect New Orleans (http://budurl.com/97zp) instead of a bunch of  
ill-
maintained levees.

Or we would have a high-speed cross-country rail network. Or homeland
defense that actually works. Or ... well, you get the idea. And perhaps
you think the idea is ludicrous. Fine with me. At least it's not the
same old old "gummint bad, money mine" tripe.

And we'd have a highly stimulated economy.

Dave


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Franklin Delano Bush

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:44 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Franklin Delano Bush
> 
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:25 AM, John Williams
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > And sent unemployment to nearly 25%. Good intentions are no substitute
> > for good
> > > decisions. Roosevelt's policies were disastrous for the poor.
> >
> > Cite please.  I'm pretty sure that unemployment hit 25% during his
> > first year in office and declined (for the most part) thereafter.
> >
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:
> 
> "Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when
> he
> took office to 14.3% in 1937."  This was, of course, long before the war
> had
> any effect on employment.
> 
> "The U.S.
> economy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States>grew
> rapidly during Roosevelt's term.
> [55] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#cite_note-
> 54>However,
> coming out of the depression, this growth was accompanied by
> continuing high levels of
> unemployment

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_rate#New_Deal_in_US
A.2C_1933-40>;
> as the median joblessness rate during the New Deal was 17.2%. Throughout
> his
> entire term, including the war years, average unemployment was 13%."
> 
> John had it exactly right, except backwards.

I think that the drop in unemployment from 1933 to 1937 is not the subject
of much argument.  It's the reason for the following year's rise back up to
19% that sparks the arguments.  Those who think that FDR did more harm than
good cite problems with profits, new labor laws that made it easier to
strike, etc.  Keynesians would argue that the balancing of the Federal
budget in 1938 was the cause, since deficits were still needed.

What is undisputed is that, as WWII started, the US rate dropped down to
9.9% in 1941, and dropped down below 2% from 43-45...as we were firmly in
the war.  I'd argue that these data tends to favor Keynesian analysis, since
the war involved overwhelming government intervention in the economy,
massive federal deficits, etc.  Indeed, from a purely economic point of view
this is wasteful government spending at its worth, spending billions upon
billions on things that either blow themselves up or get blown up.  Yet, it
was the foundation of the US  being the economic powerhouse that it was
during the next 60 or so years.


Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Alberto Monteiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> >
> Of course, you know you can't trust Wikipedia:


According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is completely trustworthy.  For more than
200 years, IIRC.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Alberto Monteiro]

Nick Arnett wrote:
> 
> Wikipedia:
> 
> "Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% 
> when he took office to 14.3% in 1937."  This was, of course, long 
> before the war had any effect on employment.
> 
Of course, you know you can't trust Wikipedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionism

oops, wrong link. Try this:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

Alberto Monteiro

PS: I was wrong about "Obama is a pedophile". It's "Obama is green".

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Franklin Delano Bush

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I'll rephrase. After 6 years of FDR, unemployment was
> still 19%.
> Unemployment only went down to normal levels after the US
> entered
> World War 2.  So if you include going to war as part of the
> New Deal,
> then yes, the New Deal brought down unemployment.

So John, are you suggesting that the New Deal had little to do with bringing 
America out of the Great Depression, and crediting the war economy?  At the 
same time, are you blaming FDR for causing the Great Depression, instead of the 
preceding Republican administrations?


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Franklin Delano Bush

[Jon Louis Mann]

> "Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's
> first term, from 25% when he
> took office to 14.3% in 1937."  This was, of course,
> long before the war had
> any effect on employment.

> "The U.S.
> economygrew
> rapidly during Roosevelt's term.
> However,
> coming out of the depression, this growth was accompanied
> by continuing high levels of unemployment.
> as the median joblessness rate during the New Deal was
> 17.2%. Throughout his
> entire term, including the war years, average unemployment
> was 13%."
> John had it exactly right, except backwards.
> Nick

he needs to be careful when using his favorite tactic, to cite a reference...
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:25 AM, John Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And sent unemployment to nearly 25%. Good intentions are no substitute
> for good
> > decisions. Roosevelt's policies were disastrous for the poor.
>
> Cite please.  I'm pretty sure that unemployment hit 25% during his
> first year in office and declined (for the most part) thereafter.
>


Wikipedia:

"Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he
took office to 14.3% in 1937."  This was, of course, long before the war had
any effect on employment.

"The U.S. economygrew
rapidly during Roosevelt's term.
[55] However,
coming out of the depression, this growth was accompanied by
continuing high levels of
unemployment;
as the median joblessness rate during the New Deal was 17.2%. Throughout his
entire term, including the war years, average unemployment was 13%."

John had it exactly right, except backwards.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that unemployment hit 25% during his
> first year in office and declined (for the most part) thereafter.

I'll rephrase. After 6 years of FDR, unemployment was still 19%.
Unemployment only went down to normal levels after the US entered
World War 2.  So if you include going to war as part of the New Deal,
then yes, the New Deal brought down unemployment.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Doug Pensinger]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:25 AM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> And sent unemployment to nearly 25%. Good intentions are no substitute for 
> good
> decisions. Roosevelt's policies were disastrous for the poor.

Cite please.  I'm pretty sure that unemployment hit 25% during his
first year in office and declined (for the most part) thereafter.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Don Bodreaux wrote:
> >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 

By the way, I forgot to include a link to the editorial Don was responding to
above:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/20/franklin-delano-bush/

> 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.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were heavily influenced by government's wishes,
and they did not avoid failure. Where is the evidence that the government can
fix everything?

> 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.

And sent unemployment to nearly 25%. Good intentions are no substitute for good
decisions. Roosevelt's policies were disastrous for the poor.

> 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.

Unfortunately, no, the experiment has not been performed. There is no period in
recent history where we had anything close to the lack of government 
interference
that "free-market fundamentalists" advocate.

> Even Greenspan, the high priest of the free market and Laissez-faire 
> policies, 

No, Greenspan was a federal regulator for years. No "free-market fundamentalist"
would consider a federal regulator to be their "high priest".


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Olin Elliott]

>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:brin-l@mccmedia.com> 
  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

Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

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