A majority of the voters in this last election felt the need for "change" without knowing exactly what the change was going to be. We're starting to see some specifics of that "change" now, and they look a lot like FDR's policies of his first two terms in office. What most people don't know is that the New Deal was a bad deal for the US and for the world. The socialist and protectionist policies enacted then were intended to boost the US economy, but they ended up prolonging the Great Depression and making the 1937-38 recession far worse than it might have been.
No, really, there was an economic downturn during the Great Depression. Sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but it's true.
The media's slobbering love affair with Barack Obama (not my term; I stole it from a recent book) has obscured the dangers of his economic philosophy. It has never - never - helped any social class when politicians have simply thrown money at them without direction or restriction. Lyndon Johnson's War Against Poverty in the 1960's made no real difference in the number of Americans living in poverty. The programs of the 1980's and 1990's which were aimed at combating homelessness by giving away houses and apartments and living allowances didn't significantly affect the number of people living on the streets of our cities. And the current "economic stimulus" being debated in Congress is just more of the same. We're about to throw money at an economic blaze which uses money for fuel. I'm amazed that some of these people haven't killed themselves trying to put out a campfire with gasoline.
Carol, I understand your concerns and I share them. The US economy won't get healthier by beating up on other nations' economies. Artemis is right; we can't cut off international trade and expect to correct our money woes. In fact, one of the causes of the War of 1812 with Great Britain was a severe economic downturn in New England caused by an American boycott of all European trade (put in place by Jefferson's Presidential executive order, not an act of Congress) in reaction to the British practice of impressing sailors from neutral countries to serve in the Royal Navy. Interesting fact: that practice had all but died out by 1812 because the British no longer needed so many sailors to fight the French by then, and because voices in Parliament were raised in opposition to the practice on both moral and practical grounds. The point is that America has always depended on foreign trade for its economic health, and plans with force companies to "buy American" even when the goods are not readily available or are of inferior quality is doomed to failure. That aspect of the plan is a political concession to the labor unions in the US as much as it is a statement of principle.
Thanks for the link, Ann. Interesting to see the New York Times publish a statement like that one.
We're all going to see some rough times for a while. It's going to take some time to dig out of the hole our government has shoved us in. I only wish that they could see that frantic activity at the bottom of a hole usually just makes the hole deeper.
