Posted inUncategorized

President Hoover and Depression thinking

I feel the need to come to the defense of Herbert Hoover, if for no other reason than this fundamental misreading of history will only set us up for costly mistakes in the future. The left long has labeled George W. Bush "President Hoover" for presiding over a historic economic crisis. Now the meme has been picked up by the right, as well.

Yet to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, President Bush, you're no Herbert Hoover. Among the differences: Hoover (1874-1964) was a self-made man, who worked his way through the new Stanford University, made a fortune as a brilliant engineer, then gained international acclaim for coordinating relief for refugees in World War I. Although a Republican, Hoover came from the party's Theodore Roosevelt progressive wing. He was mistrusted by Calvin Coolidge, and for good reason. Hoover wanted to move away from the rapacious capitalism of the 1920s to an ethic that embraced the common good and the obligations of business to society. He was a product of his time of scientific and engineering wonders: The Great Engineer, who could bring pragmatic, fact-based solutions to governing.

Unfortunately, Hoover was elected in 1929, not 1912 — the era in which his worldview had been shaped. After the great crash and with the gathering depression, Hoover was overwhelmed. His administration launched the greatest expansion of government intervention in the economy up to that point, including programs and ideas that would live on in the New Deal. Yet it did little good as unemployment reached a staggering 25 percent and Americans were forced into shantytowns they called Hoovervilles.

10
Posted inUncategorized

Economics 101: Watch me fail to explain the crisis to the duhs and ignos

Commentators keep trying to explain the financial meltdown and subsequent bailout debate by using analogies that "average Americans" can understand. We hear such things as "imagine Wall Street was your kid that ate a big bag of candy and got sick, then wanted more candy," etc.

The problem is that the calamity is so bad partly because it is not simple. The venality behind it is something everyone should understand (and many "average Americans," with their get-rich-through-liar-loan-financed-rent-houses schemes participated in). But the essential mechanics and details of how we got here, and how the situation might be improved, are highly complex. This is a stark reminder of a danger facing us: America is saddled with one of the least informed electorates of an advanced nation, and one hardly as intelligent or engaged as their forebears who actually built the wealth in money, institutions and ideas that we are now rapidly throwing away. It shows the risk of the continued governance by "conservatism," which by its very nature can’t handle complexity.

Here’s an analogy for the bailout: triage, longer-term care and rehab. The paramedics and ER personnel need to identify those that can’t be saved and set them aside, while focusing on the most life-threatening cases where the patient can still be saved, leaving the less injured for later. But I can dumb it down no further. I can only add complicating factors. As in, the paramedics have tools that will have unpredictable effects not only on the patients but also on everyone in the world. The patients’ bodies are wired into everyone else in the world. And the medics are working on injuries they never trained for.

Simple enough? Of course not.

4
Posted inPolitics: National

Barely avoiding economic judgment day, maybe

I’ve been traveling this week as the American financial markets came as close to collapse as at anytime since 1929. And make no mistake: this disaster is real, it will unfold in unexpected ways, and it won’t be an event that is over quickly such as in 1987 — or even the S&L scandal. Some early takes:

–It would be ironic if Republican John Sidney McCain III were elected and George W. Bush left one positive legacy by stabilizing the meltdown — the "let the markets rule" so-called conservatives, who saved the day thanks to mechanisms put in place by Woodrow Wilson, FDR and successive liberals. If we didn’t have tools such as the Fed, FDIC, SEC, etc. — this could have been a calamity on the order of the "panics" of the 19th century, with worldwide contagion.

–This event should totally discredit the deregulation, market-religion ideas pursued over the past 25 years — it is the direct result of these policies. But maybe not. The administration may use unprecedented intervention to save capitalism, and then go back to their Milton Friedman sock-puppet talking points. And the duhs and ignos won’t care — Obama’s black, remember?

–Gee, remember when W intended to "spend his political capital" privatizing Social  Security into the toxic investment bank dumps that are now failing? Republican John Sidney McCain III still wants to do this.

3
Posted inPolitics: National

A referendum on conservatism and ‘conservatism’

Part of me wants to nap until election day — and I’m a political junkie. The campaign coverage has descended to such a level of distraction and foolishness, especially in the electronic media, that it’s difficult to bear. Unfortunately, most people will be sufficiently indoctrinated by this sideshow, and I give you President-elect McCain. Where he is the truly risky choice, the media must have Obama in that box. Where the election should be a referendum on the now incontestable consequences of the Republican policies McCain will continue, it will be a referendum on Obama. I give you: President-elect McCain.

And he’s the "conservative." Yet he is no impostor. He is the same kind of "conservative" that has run the country for years.

This perhaps is the biggest irony in the room. A quarter century of "conservative" rule — including Bill Clinton and the Gingrich Congress — have given us a larger government, huge deficits, a crippling debt, debased culture, overseas adventures and imperial presidential power (We’re Americans: we torture) that would make Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater cringe. It is even counter to the ideas of Ronald Reagan as a political thinker (and, yes, he was a formidable one). By way of context, Ike, Nixon and George H.W. Bush were right-of-center pragmatists, not conservatives.

The heirs of Buckley bravely carry water for today’s "conservatives," but Buckley couldn’t have died a happy man, to see where his counter-revolution led (he became a vocal critic of the Iraq adventure). Burke and Russell Kirk are spinning so fast in their graves as to provide new data to particle physicists.

3
Posted inPolitics: National

McCain’s national security cred and TR — more media lies

The corporate media, particularly the electronic division, keeps repeating certain shorthand, whether it’s true or not. One example, on display almost daily, is that "John McCain’s the maverick." I’ve gone to great lengths on this blog to disprove that notion. McCain is a fairly conventional "conservative" who once or twice bucked his party when it didn’t really matter. You can check his voting record. This is no secret.

McCain’s utter hostility to helping the state he claims to represent deal with the problems of rapid urbanization and funding the illegal alien surge that was so profitable to Republican businessmen shows how he will govern domestically. Likewise his "straight shooter integrity" image is shattered by the facts, from the Keating Five onward. (Check the McCain File to your right for more).

Now two more "givens" are in the teleprompter scrips. First is the idea that McCain is a national security expert, ready to be commander in chief on "day one" — Sen. Clinton helpfully said it herself. The second is that McCain is a "Theodore Roosevelt Republican."

There’s just one problem: Neither is true.

2