Okay, boys and girls. The lesson for today is that, as former VP Dan Quayle reminded us, a head is a terrible thing to lose.
Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan may be personally nice people. They may be more or less intelligent. They are not well informed. On a recent edition of the MSNBC show Morning Joe they brought out a commentary from the Wall Street Journal. They were in total agreement with it.
The thrust of the commentary was that FDR’s stimulus package during the Great Depression did nothing to help. They agreed that WWII was what ended the economic problems. Ignorance of the facts is wide spread. To hold such a position is to exhibit a lack of knowledge of that period.
It is true that during the depression there was a downturn at the beginning of FDR’s second term. There is an explanation; one that Joe, Pat and the writer of that commentary were unaware of, or ignored.
During FDR’s first term the stock market quadrupled and unemployment dropped from 24% to 14%. The problem arose when he let himself be talked into the stupidity of conservative economics; what brought on and exacerbated the depression in the first place.
He was told, and accepted, that it was important to balance the budget. He followed that advice. It led to the drop that can be seen in his second term. The stimulus spending that was WWII did indeed finally get us (yes, I was around back then) out of the depression. That put a temporary quietus on the nonsense of balancing the budget when the economy needed help.
People are using the ignorance of what really happened to argue that the government should not initiate a major stimulus package in our present predicament. They are using the same stupid conservative economics that gave us the meltdown that we are now experiencing.
On another front, Dick Armey, former House Majority Leader, The Cato Institute and a host of other conservatives are trying to challenge TARP and Obama’s stimulus package as unconstitutional. This comes from a bunch of twits (British for half-wits) who supported torture, eavesdropping on all Americans, preemptive war and Texas accents as constitutional.
I have had my fill of know-nothings who call themselves fiscal conservatives but spend like drunken sailors or borrow to give tax relief during good times then call for balanced budgets when the economy needs stimulation.
The only positive legacy of Bush 43′s regime is the most dramatic demonstration in memory of the fallacy of every tenet of conservative economic simple mindedness. The only way to give our present economic turmoil meaning is to learn from it and bury all of those inanities.
Economics is not really sufficiently developed to be considered a credible academic discipline. Some day there may be people of intelligence who will devote their efforts to developing a rational, coherent field of study. If that day ever comes it will mean an end to labeling economics as either conservative or liberal. Let me emphasize, there really is no such thing as a conservative economics. There is really no such thing as a liberal economics.
There really isn’t a collection of theories or party hats or anything else that is worthy of study that provides us an understanding of economics. Get over it. Quit burdening us with the same old absurdities, absurdities that have proven harmful, in the past and in the present.
In honor of the inauguration of President Obama on this day, let me say congratulations. Welcome to a new era. We can also celebrate the end of an error.
{ 5 comments }
Excellent read, I just passed this onto a friend who was doing a little research on that.
I don’t disagree with most of this piece. I just wonder if you really believe our current economic crisis all came about during the past eight years.
Absolutely not.
It started with Reagan. Bush 1 continued the voodoo economics. Clinton, particularly during his second term, continued to buy into the deregulation part, despite balancing the budget, as should be done during a good economy. Bush 2 did make a more concentrated effort to deregulate but since September has very reluctantly accepted the need for stimulus though it violated his ideology.
The problem is that important players will not let go of these inane propositions despite the logic and the evidence.
As for ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ economics, think of the stupidity of ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ chemistry. Economics has yet to attain the credibility of chemistry but using such modifiers for economics is silly nonetheless.
The public is also to blame. They have also spent like drunken sailors. Instead of suffering for their transgressions they want tax cuts. Spineless politicians will give them tax cuts. These will provide by far the least effective stimulation of any possible option.
If you agreed with me totally, one of us would be unnecessary.
I just didn’t understand the last sentence of the piece, unless you thought the whole problem was George W. Bush’s fault. I also question your optimism about federal politicians suddenly being smarter than they were yesterday.
That was merely a play on words: End of an era/error. It might work better in an audio version.
I was not aware that I was all that optimistic about federal politicians. At least during the first FDR term they did some things right. They are going to have a stimulus package, although not an optimal one. Even if they do behave a bit more intelligently than over the past 28 years, I fear it will be only a temporary improvement. Old habits die hard, if at all.
I am definitely against the tax cut (deferment) part of the package as you may deduce from my previous response.
Comments on this entry are closed.