Thomas Sowell went off the deep end in his re-inventing history session as republished in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington. Some highlights here: Not to my knowledge did Ronald Reagan study economics. He was a Hollywood actor before he finally became governor. He had on his staff a guy by the name of David Stockman who never studied economics either. At least not the sort of economics that would result in businesses staying competitive, cutting edge, not buying into greed and the grievous consequences of junk bond buying. President Reagan's activist government deregulated businesses that by the time of G.HW Bush, resulted in a bailout of Savings and Loans, definitely at the costs to the taxpayers. Had Stockman not been an economic theorist, perhaps Reagan wouldn't have handed over an economic nightmare to his Vice President. What made Sowell even goofier, was to equate Karl Marx with Ronald Reagan. Not as far as I know did Marx study economics. He happened to be a social theorist. Soviet Russia tried implementing his social theories and ultimately only recreated tyranny. Something that supposedly, ole Marx was opposed to.
Richard Nixon is on the list as interfering with the market. Uh, at what point in time has any president not interfered with the market? Does it involve the gold standard? The government was involved. How about government created national banks, such as happened in the 19th century? The stockmarket crashed in 1929 with disasterous consequences for many businesses and the American worker. What if FDR had been of the opinion that the market could simply adjust itself. I highly doubt this country could have been economically ready to go to war with Nazi Germany. Was the market "self adjusting" when the housing bubble burst? Can people who made shady subprime mortgage deals be considered the only ones who took unnecessary risks? How about the free-for-all among bankers and lenders wanting to cash in on this, and then demanding more money, more, more, more until it became impossible for those who signed onto such a plan to make the payments and then lost their homes. In the year or so before the housing bubble burst, GW was pointing to domestic policy successes by all those new home owners across the nation. Uh huh. GW was actively encouraging what would ultimately become an economic nightmare that has already spread out and away from housing and actively affected retail store end of year sales.
So the question is this, if government moves to benefit corporations, it isn't about economics? But if government moves to benefit the workforce, then there are disasterous consequences to the economy because the market wasn't allowed to adjust itself? Uh, earth to Sowell, there wouldn't have been a burgeoning middle class from the 50s on without FDR interfering with the Marketplace on the behalf of the American workforce. And it seems to me that government moving to benefit business interests above that of the consumer/laborer has disasterous consequences. Or the Marine led Toys for Tots wouldn't have suffered a massive shortfall in Yuletide goodies for the kids in 2007. Leave it to Sowell to refuse to face reality.
Richard Nixon is on the list as interfering with the market. Uh, at what point in time has any president not interfered with the market? Does it involve the gold standard? The government was involved. How about government created national banks, such as happened in the 19th century? The stockmarket crashed in 1929 with disasterous consequences for many businesses and the American worker. What if FDR had been of the opinion that the market could simply adjust itself. I highly doubt this country could have been economically ready to go to war with Nazi Germany. Was the market "self adjusting" when the housing bubble burst? Can people who made shady subprime mortgage deals be considered the only ones who took unnecessary risks? How about the free-for-all among bankers and lenders wanting to cash in on this, and then demanding more money, more, more, more until it became impossible for those who signed onto such a plan to make the payments and then lost their homes. In the year or so before the housing bubble burst, GW was pointing to domestic policy successes by all those new home owners across the nation. Uh huh. GW was actively encouraging what would ultimately become an economic nightmare that has already spread out and away from housing and actively affected retail store end of year sales.
So the question is this, if government moves to benefit corporations, it isn't about economics? But if government moves to benefit the workforce, then there are disasterous consequences to the economy because the market wasn't allowed to adjust itself? Uh, earth to Sowell, there wouldn't have been a burgeoning middle class from the 50s on without FDR interfering with the Marketplace on the behalf of the American workforce. And it seems to me that government moving to benefit business interests above that of the consumer/laborer has disasterous consequences. Or the Marine led Toys for Tots wouldn't have suffered a massive shortfall in Yuletide goodies for the kids in 2007. Leave it to Sowell to refuse to face reality.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment