Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Bush's Decisive Action Could Ruin Us All

Bush is urging "decisive action" to avoid recession. Decisive action should work wonders at weakening the economy much more than it already is. But only if we believe all of world history. If we want to ignore all of world history when it comes to economics, then why not throw $700 billion or more down a hole and torch it? This is the problem with mythology ruling over facts in history. The myth is that FDR's decisive action got us out of the Great Depression, and that if there had been decisive action by Hoover, there wouldn't have been a Depression. The reality is that Hoover was taking decisive action -- so much decisive action that FDR was accusing him of pushing us toward communism -- and that it was precisely that decisive action which made what would have been a slight downturn into a massive depression. FDR then turning around and continuing those policies only made things worse. Fortunately, the Supreme Court declared the New Deal unconstitutional (it was), and unemployment dropped form a high of about 25% to about 8% in the year FDR had finally replaced enough SCOTUS judges to get the New Deal passed. The result? Unemployment jumped back up to 15%. The Depression ended only after we entered WWII and employed people as soldiers or arms builders. If the truth of decisive action in regards to the Great Depression were common knowledge rather than the myth perpetuated by the lying Left, Bush wouldn't be idiotically pushing for decisive action now. Of course, if SCOTUS had been able to hold off FDR's programs until WWII, we would be in the current financial mess we are in, since this mess we are in can be traced back to those regulations and the creation of a central bank. Just like with the USSR's entire command economy, the sector of the US economy that had been turned into a command economy collapsed 80 years after having been implemented. Is that a rule of nature, that a command economy collapses in 80 years?

2 comments:

Todd Camplin said...

A few points: Should it be a requirement that before any person is elected, should have at least econ 101. New rules don't have to be added, the rules on the books should have been enforced. If fraud was involved, then these firm leaders should be punished. And finally, throwing money at a problem does not allow the market to punish the stupid.

Troy Camplin said...

The problem is that the rules on the books is what caused this problem. We don't need enforcement of the rules on the books, since those rules' enforcement was what caused this. We need to eliminate the rules and allow all companies, no matter how large to either sink of swim. Giving dictatorial power to the Treasury Secretary isn't the way to solve this problem -- in fact, it's giving more power and money to the very entity that caused the problem in the first place. That's madness.