Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gerald Warner: New president, same old snake-oil economics

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 January 2009
TUESDAY may be regarded by future historians as the beginning of the end for the United States of America.
It is the first credible date that may become iconic as the moment when the federation that came into existence in 1776 and rose to global hegemony in the 20th century joined Macedonia, Rome and Britain in the catacombs of fallen empires. Barack Obam
a is America's nemesis.

This presidency has the very real potential to impoverish America on a scale that could demote it irreversibly from its economic superpower status. When a politician masquerades as a messiah, be very afraid. This column was subjected to frantic abuse circa 1997 for denouncing Tony Blair as the Great Charlatan. Today, it is hardly an isolated view.

Obama is mega-Blair. It is understandable some Americans should be deceived; but after the Blair experience there is no excuse for any Britons buying the Brooklyn Bridge. The one reservation that slightly dampens the euphoria of Obama groupies is the thought that now, with a massive recession under way, is a most inopportune time to come into office. Nothing could be further from the truth. From Obama's viewpoint, this is a preternaturally opportune moment, an unhoped-for conjunction of circumstances that uniquely enables him to implement a programme that would otherwise have been unthinkable.

In normal times, the aggressive expansion of big government and state intervention into every area of the economy and of citizens' lives would be a non-starter in America. Today, however, a recession that threatens to deepen into a depression has left frightened citizens vulnerable to the blandishments of the Keynesian snake-oil salesman. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan – Obama's so-called stimulus package – is the vehicle for transforming America into a Stetson-wearing European Union.

Even before the plan, the US federal deficit will be $1.2 trillion this year. Last February, when Congress passed a $152bn stimulus bill, Obama condemned it as "deficit spending" and denounced the "disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting" it displayed. At the end of 2008, his adviser David Axelrod was canvassing "a package from $675bn to $775bn". By last week it had mushroomed to $825bn. Even the Capitol Hill cat knows it will hit $1 trillion.

Fiscal conservatives are being placated by emphasising the $310bn of his package devoted to tax cuts. Yet the way they are being directed, even at this early stage, looks wasteful. The better plan, as Republicans pointed out, would have been to cut the middle-income tax rate from 25% to 15%. For that matter, if the government has $825bn to spare, the real stimulus would have been to translate it all into tax cuts that would have galvanised the economy.

No way, José: that is foreign to the Obama mindset. The stimulus package is exactly like those parcels of toxic debt the banks were passing around. Under the pretence of "stimulus", Obama is implementing interventionist schemes and paying Danegeld to various interest groups. Obama admits 244,000 new government jobs will be created: sceptical critics put the real figure at 600,000. He promises to create 459,000 new jobs in "green energy". That says it all: federal pen-pushers and people manufacturing useless wind turbines – all the leftist, non-productive sinecures that stagnate, rather than stimulate, an economy.

Overall, Obama promises more than three million new jobs. Unfortunately, some clever clogs in Congress with a ball-point and the back of an envelope spotted that meant a cost of $275,000 per job. Governments cannot create jobs. All they can do is invent camouflaged welfare programmes. Only the market can create jobs; and massive "job" creation in the public sector destroys real employment.

To implement a programme so alien to the instincts of Americans, Obama needs a supportive mythology. He has found it in the myth of Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal. That massive interventionist programme actually delayed recovery from the 1930s depression. During 1930-40, the US economy would have been expected to grow 30%-40%. Instead, it languished: net private investment totalled -$3.1bn. So-called infrastructure programmes are unsuitable for combating recession: they need long advance planning and proper execution; too often they are gerry-built white elephants.

Barack Obama's inauguration address on Tuesday will be big on rhetoric: that is what he does. The plan he will trumpet will be a failure economically; but it may well prove a success in achieving its author's agenda – reducing the US to a Keynesian theme park like the ones based in Brussels, Paris and, most recently, London.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 18/01/2009 01:08:07
Amid all the euphoria I think Gerald may be on to something here.
2

Chris Cook,

Linlithgow 18/01/2009 03:53:38
If investors decide they wish to buy 20,000 Mega Watt Hours of electricity at £50.00 per mega watt hour (by the simple expedient of selling to them Units redeemable in 1 Mega Watt Hour of energy), that gives us the £1m we need to build a "useless" 1 Mw wind turbine, and all of the useless jobs that made it and installed it.

That 20,000 MwH is about 40% of the production of an average turbine in its 20 years of operation. Give an operator 10% of production to maintain it (more useless jobs), and the rest is surplus.

This surplus will allow communities to fund even more useless jobs building and operating more productive assets if we let it, rather than giving it to rentier shareholders to "trickle it down".

"Useless" wind turbines are essentially plucking £50 notes out of the fresh air, Mr Warner, but perhaps you haven't noticed.

You DEFINE an NHS nurse as a burden on the tax-payer, but the minute she's employed by a Company then she is magically DEFINED as "productive" and creating "wealth".

Goerge Orwell would have been proud of such NewSpeak.



3

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 08:18:38
Wishful thinking on the part of the author?

Once this recession runs its course, the United States of America will once again emerge economically, politically and militarily stronger than any other nation on earth!

The scale of human energy, intellect and unbridled ambition in the USA melting pot will ensure that it still outruns China, India, Europe, and any other future competitor, and to believe otherwise is rather naive.

The business of America will always be business!
4

Itchy,

18/01/2009 10:32:57
#3 If Barack Obama raises taxes and spending and the power of government more than George W. Bush has, then America will not recover.

America cannot escape from the laws of economics, no matter how wishful the thinking of Barack Obama's supporters.
5

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 18/01/2009 10:42:59
There are some valid points in GW's article, eg the comparison between the unrealistically high expectations piled on both Blair and Obama when they took office. Disillusioned followers will soon multiply as they discover that Barack Obama, like all US presidents, is as beholden as any US president to deeply-entrenched corporate interests and special-interest group lobbyists.

In the words of # 3 Lachie Todd: "The business of America will always be business!"

However, fair's fair. What GW doesn't (can't) acknowledge is that the immense "Keynesian" stimulus package (which isn't just "Obama's") only became possible because of the way that the US economy, and nearly everything else, has been mismanaged over the last 8 years by George Bush's Republicans. The US economy in late 2000 had a reasonably balanced budget and the national debt, although immense, wasn't yet seen as unmanageable. There was a trade deficit but again it was not critical, partly because of strong new industries such as financial services. And in 2000, the USA wasn't immersed in two unwinnable and financially crippling wars, the first of those launched for spurious neocon reasons.

In other words, the beginning of the end of the USA could be traced back to 12th December 2000, when Bush's crony Katherine Harris (in charge of the Florida recount) was permitted by the US Supreme Court to cease the vote recount, handing the Presidency to Florida governor Jeb Bush's muddle-headed brother.

As for the criticism of the New Deal: one still feels that inaction by FDR would have made things even worse. Maybe the economy wouldn't have been ready in time to deal with Hitler. But hey, at least the rich would have had their tax cuts!
6

Teemackell the Scribe,

18/01/2009 13:02:23

#5, Bolivarian Scot writes:

"Disillusioned followers will soon multiply as they discover that Barack Obama, like all US presidents, is as beholden as any US president to deeply-entrenched corporate interests and special-interest group lobbyists."


But he isn't. His campaign, unlike Hillary's or McCain's, was funded by an astonishingly successful internet campaign that raised millions of small donations from ordinary voters.
7

Teemackell the Scribe,

18/01/2009 13:28:47
GW writes,

"To implement a programme so alien to the instincts of Americans, Obama needs a supportive mythology. He has found it in the myth of Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal."

GW is in thrall to his own supportive myth: that the untrammeled free market will deliver the social and economic goods. Has he not noticed that this ideology has led to our and the US banking systems going bust? There is now a real prospect that RBS-a basket case of toxic debt and other rubbish -will be 100% nationalised to save it going the same way as Woolworths.

If he is consistent, he should argue that the banks should have been allowed to go bust. (If he has argued this case, I have not seen it here or elsewhere). Had that happened, banks would have toppled like dominoes and brought other businesses down with them. We should now be heading for economic carnage with 7, 8, 9, 10,...millions out of work and our public services in chaos.

What GW needs to know is that the game is up for de-regulated global capitalism. The model for which he leads the cheers is history, kaput, finished, over. It is, whether he likes it or no, dirigisme Euro-style or bust.
8

Retiarius,

Batavadorum 18/01/2009 16:57:49
I think you'll find it's "jerry built" rather than "gerry built" (sic) - after the prefabs built by "jerry" POW's after WW2. It is this sort of basic effort which makes me wonder whether it's worth struggling on .... if one can't find literacy in a Warner column, what hope is there?
Also "gerry (sic) built white elephants" - what sort of demented mixed metaphor is that? Oh well ...
9

Retiarius,

Batavadorum 18/01/2009 16:59:47
Come on Jerry, I mean Gerry - you can do much better.
10

Itchy,

18/01/2009 17:07:27
#5 "As for the criticism of the New Deal: one still feels that inaction by FDR would have made things even worse. Maybe the economy wouldn't have been ready in time to deal with Hitler. But hey, at least the rich would have had their tax cuts!"

This is Marxist pig ignorance.

The relentless tax rises and interventionism of Hoover and then by FDR were precisely what kept the economy stagnant.

BTW what objection can you, as an open supporter of totalitarian rule, have against Hitler?
11

Itchy,

18/01/2009 17:10:09
#5 " Disillusioned followers will soon multiply as they discover that Barack Obama, like all US presidents, is as beholden as any US president to deeply-entrenched corporate interests and special-interest group lobbyists.

"

This is a typical Marxist refusal to differentiate between capitalism and interventionism for big business.
12

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 18/01/2009 17:15:32
# Teemackell the Scribe -

I accept that Obama's campaign gathered a greater amount of small donors but I simply don't buy that there were minimal donations from the corporate sector, and that they are uninterested in payback, and neither does the (comparatively) liberal New York Times:-

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/obama-donations-show-strong-wall-st-support/

Barack Obama was one of the supporters of the bail-out of malfunctioning Wall Street banks, too. What a coincidence!

As for the "special interest groups", Barack Obama, like all US presidential candidates, had to ditch his even-handedness on Middle Eastern affairs and commit himself, as a necessary precondition of taking office, to the Israeli / Zionist cause by prostrating himself before AIPAC, the hugely influential Jewish-American lobbyists.
13

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 18/01/2009 20:59:49
# 10 and 11 Itchy -

Still living in your free-market Never-Never Land of "perfect competition", I see!

And still throwing out the needless abuse, too. It's water off a duck's back, mate!

It isn't difficult to speculate what would have happened to a "do nothing" US government in the 1930s. Even more banks and businesses would have failed. The US infrastructure wouldn't have been as developed. And extremist, maybe isolationist politics might have taken hold. Perhaps that is one reason why FDR did what he did.

As for the charge that I support totalitarianism, I would refer you back, again, to my previous answers. Stalinism = bad. USSR = sometimes good (eg WWII, promoting women's rights etc).

You may believe that the USSR was always wrong in every way, and that its policies never changed one iota over the years. I say: history demonstrates otherwise. And I'm more than happy to debate that, if you can stop the veins in your forehead throbbing for long enough.

I suppose the reason that communism retains intellectual respectability in many parts of the world is that it's theoretically egalitarian, whereas fascism is based on narrow nationalism and xenophobia.
14

Itchy,

18/01/2009 22:44:24
#13 once again, you are promoting totalitarianism and once again you are lying about the US economy of the 1930's.

Communism was never defeated by a war, which is why people like you defend it. It is no less totalitarian than Fascism and no less genocidal either.

"It isn't difficult to speculate what would have happened to a "do nothing" US government in the 1930s. Even more banks and businesses would have failed. "

Wrong. This quote from you is an elaborate way of saying that a free lunch is possible. The hyperprotectionism and insatiable thirst for tax and spend of the state in the 1930's were precisely what turned boom-and-bust into a depression.

I may add that a number of FDR's 'New deal brains trust' took their ideas from Mussolini. The new deal was a synthesis of the ideas of Marx, Von Bismarck and Mussolini.

Oh, and no one had any rights in the USSR, man or woman.

15

Vladimir Val Cymbal,

Tarzan CA 20/01/2009 05:30:24
This article is predicting a dire state of affairs, not news to me. I just hope that some of those yoyos that voted for BHO also read it and that it made sense to them.

Now if some one can come up with a workable solution to get us out of this I would be very grateful. All I can think of is to point out the disasters as they happen hope that the lemmings that followed BHO will make a U-turn.
16

Cato's USA,

New York, NY 20/01/2009 13:40:48
Just a couple of observations from across the pond:
1. This is truly a low point in American electoral politics.. Never before have Americans elected such an unqualified, inexperienced, and unvetted candidate to the presidency.
2. Those that embrace high intellect as a primary requisite to the presidency are profoundly mistaken. (Liberals love to, and with much success, portray conservative presidents as idiots, but libs are no less their equals). Nearly all of the so-called intellectuals are big gov't liberals dragging us ever further from our limited gov't heritage.
3. The results of a failed policy are usually not seen or felt until long after its creators are gone. The current mess is nothing more than the result of leftist tinkering with the free market mechanisms - primarily the so-called sub-prime mortgage mess created under Carter but primarily expanded under Clinton. Liberal Socialists bastardizing American capitalism = economic disaster. Anyone who points to this current fiasco as an example of the futility of capitalism either fails to understand what has happened or is a hardcore marxist.
17

Cato's USA,

New York 20/01/2009 13:57:02
Once again we will see conservatism cleaning up the mess of liberalism. Just as Bush had to do the heavy lifting Clinton refused to do prior to 9-11, we will surely see conservatism solve this economic mess - if it will get resolved at all. If Obama does it he will do so by rejecting his own campaign promises and plans(and embracing conservative principles), to the great dismay of his disciples. It will be to his credit, and their discredit, for they will be shown at last to lack the basic understanding (no high intellect required) of the source of America's greatness. And if he sticks to his guns and fails miserably (which is just what will happen then) they are equally discredited as naive waifs, for the agenda they championed will be a disaster.
18

Drlax15m,

Dulles, VA 20/01/2009 14:24:15
Thank you Cato, I can't stand people who display such a lack of understanding when they blame the current economic situation solely on Bush (same goes for 9/11, apparently WTC 1993 attack and the training and planning inside the US under Clintons watch doesnt matter to some, ala Larry King, he is clueless on this as evidenced on his show during the Dem convention). It was the Democrats that encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give out risky home loans to unqualified people, in an effort for "equality" - precisely the reason so many foreclosures are happening to minorities right now. Plus the lenders knew they were backed by the government, so inevitably when it all fell apart like what just happened, they knew they would be bailed out, no risk to them, highly risky and hurtful to the American taxpayer! Socialized everything here we come...
19

Under Siege,

USA 20/01/2009 15:21:43
I don't even know where to begin on some of these comments.

First, let me address #5 about the last 8 years being run by GWB and Republicans. What is forgotten is that the Reps did NOT control congress for those 8 years. At most, they had "total" control for 2 of those 8 years. During the 1st 2 years, the Senate changed hands due to Jim Jeffords switching parties. This happened 6 months after GWB BEAT Albore. It stayed that way until the 2002 elections.

Then, the parties were evenly split and the reps caved to the dems demands of 'equal' committee people. It stayed that way until 2004.

2004 was the only time the R's actually fully controlled everything. And that is not entirely true also because of the rules of the Senate, it takes 60 votes to move anything forward.

SO, long and short of it is, there is not ONE piece of legislation that made it out of congress that did not have Dems fingerprints all over it.


Now, onto #6 about the delusion that obama made all his money with small donations.

Chairman Obama's fundraising website was setup so that illegal funds could not be traced. Anybody could dontae with a credit card. Key word here is ANYBODY! O's web personnel had disabled any and all security measures that are used with credits cards online. There was ZERO checking of matching addresses or names. All one had to have was a valid credit card number. Hell, Adolf Hitler made quite a few donations to the dear leader. Also, fundraising rules are such that donations under $200 do not need to be reported. Therefore, a large chunk of his donations where under $200 and under made up names.

There were MANY cases here in the USA where people reported having mysterious charges show up on their credit card with donations to his majesty, yet these people did not do it. Called identity theft. And then with no verification required or asked for, mamma obama keeps the money.

Don't even get me started on the massive voter fraud tha
20

Cato's USA,

New York, NY 20/01/2009 16:34:34
Conservatism requires honest analysis. GWB was no fiscal conservative. We can't blame congress for his transgressions in this area. His proposal to privatize a mere fraction of SS met with indignation in favor of the great Ponzi Scheme. Americans bought the leftist rhetoric, but Bush was right there. That and tax cuts were about his only fiscal virtues. History will remember him kindly for battling Islamic extremism -which is much more than will ever be said of any of the gutless puke liberals that traded their hippie garb and bongs for a Democrat seat in Congress.
21

Cato's USA,

New York, NY 20/01/2009 18:13:01
Apology to libs and leftists. I was out of line.



...they probably kept the bongs.
22

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 20/01/2009 20:56:14
# 18 Cynicus in Exile -

With all due respect, I don't think I did "get it wrong" when I suggested that big business partly funded the Obama campaign and that he is beholden to special interest groups (eg AIPAC). The link that I provided (Wall Street banks) is just one example.

It would be naive to imagine that such donations are anything other than an investment.

The role of big business in US politics (before, during and after the four-yearly razzmatazz of the Presidential beauty parades) is well documented. I recommend the work of US investigative journalist Greg Palast, particularly "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (ISBN 1-84119-714-9) for some real-life examples of how big business influenced US governments.

Halliburton, Enron, the oil majors.....

Incidentally, I think that we in the UK have no grounds for complacency. The corporate sponsors buzzing around both Labour and Tory party conferences are truly mind-boggling.
23

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 20/01/2009 21:12:01
# 24 Under Siege, USA -

The attempts of Republicans to distance themselves from recent catastrophic failures in the "free market" system are understandable. It's true that the Democrats and Republicans share a broadly similar pro-market ideology (the current bailouts at public expense will be rolled back as soon as possible) and collaborated in the general hubris that led to the current mess. But ultimately the decision to reduce US interest rates and encourage cheap credit, with minimal regulatory oversight of "Wall Street", was political (in the wake of 9/11, to stave off recession). And the man in charge was George W Bush.

Ditto the "War on Terror": Bush didn't personally invent Bin Laden and Islamofacism but the unitelligent response (war on a separate country that had nothing to do with 9/11) was again the Bush regime's brainchild.

The stuff about Obama's illegal donations is a bit of a smokescreen, I think. Similar problems occurred with McCain's campaign, according to The Washington Post. The high expectations surrounding Obama are unrealistic, for many reasons, but it would be churlish to overlook the contrast between the 2 million people who crowded into Washington for Obama's inauguration today, and the mere 150,000 who turned up for Bush's eight years ago (some of whom actually physically obstructed his motorcade).
24

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 20/01/2009 21:27:47
# 21 Cato's USA and # 23 Drlax15m -

Your comments about the Clintons being responsible for the current financial disaster are oft-repeated but wrong.

It was the banks (not the Clintons) who made the hard-headed commercial decision to pile into sub-prime lending (and, in the resultant real estate boom, property lending generally) because interest rates were low (thanks to Bush's post-9/11 cheap credit) therefore sub-prime offered quick and apparently risk-free returns.

It was the banks (not the Clintons), together with privately-owned corporate lawyers, who decided it would be a smart money-spinner to package the dodgy debt into CDOs and other "financial instruments" and sell them throughout the global financial system. Of course the CDOs etc (Warren Buffet calkled them "financial WMDs") were helpfully packaged as "low-risk" by privately-owned ratings agencies such as Standard & Poors.

It was the banks (not the Clintons) who deployed expensive lawyers to deter inquisitive regulators from probing too deeply into "Wall Street". The banks wanted, and generally got, "light-touch regulation".

It was the banks who reacted to the current crisis by refusing to lend to each other.

And the general public (the private sector) contributed to the mess, too (certainly in the UK) by over-borrowing, often for the silliest of reasons.

The idea that "the Clintons" (or anyone) could somehow "force" US banks to lend to anyone is, I'm afraid, another Republican myth to rationalise / ignore the failure of free-market policies.
25

Under Siege,

20/01/2009 21:45:44
#29

"The idea that "the Clintons" (or anyone) could somehow "force" US banks to lend to anyone is, I'm afraid, another Republican myth to rationalise / ignore the failure of free-market policies."

Not true. Janet Reno and the justice dept threatened lenders who didn't meet quotas. Remember how people in the Clinton administration declared computer programs to be racists? They attacked desktop underwriting for loans. These are the programs where you input things like income and debt (not race) and it tells you if you qualify for a loan. Well, lo and behold, minorities mainly had low income and high debt and therefore didn't qualify for the same as those with good credit scores. So, these computer programs where then labeled 'racists'.

And from that, you have the DOJ threatening lending institutions on one hand, while on the other Fannie and Freddie are telling these same institutions that they will pick up these sub-prime loans.

Oh, and GWB has NOTHING to do with the interest rate. That is the Fed Chairman's job, who was Alan Greenspan. He was the one who drove the rates so low.

So, kind of hard to see how the housing market was really a 'free market' with the threat of lawsuits from the govt.
26

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 20/01/2009 22:16:08
# 14 Itchy said: "Communism was never defeated by a war, which is why people like you defend it."

Wrong. I never attempted to defend Stalinism. Naughty, naughty to suggest otherwise!

As for the "New Deal" hampering US economic recovery during the 1930s, let's just say that the jury is out. A 1995 poll of US economists saw only 22% subscribing to that viewpoint without any reservations or caveats. At the same time, 75% of historians said that the "New Deal" had a positive impact, eg permanent improvements in the US infrastructure and higher purchasing power amongst lower-income groups with high propensity to spend.

Unsurprisingly, you ignored my point about the "New Deal" helping to defuse extremist politics but few doubt that Germany's economic collapse encouraged the rise of communism and Nazism. Some leftwing critics of the "New Deal" even characterise FDR as a capitalist lackey for helping to preserve the status quo!

You described the 1929 crash as mere "boom and bust". With all due respect, it was a lot worse than that. The US economy was in freefall for 3 years before "the New Deal" began, eg in 1929-33, unemployment rose from single figures to 25%.

JK Galbraith identified five reasons why the 1929 stock market crash had such a huge and lasting impact on the real economy. Unequal income distribution (leading to a disproportionate contraction in high-bracket spending after October 1929); the bad corporate structure (1920s fraudsters, the need to upstream dividends to vast new holding companies etc); the bad banking structure (plus ca change); foreign trade problems (eg sovereign defaults amongst the USA's debtors); and rotten economic intelligence.

It's probably also fair to say that the global economy hadn't fully recovered from WWI.

The "New Deal" wasn't a 100% success in every but the reality is that "doing nothing" wasn't a political option in 1932. Despite the so-called failure of the "New Deal", the USA was sufficiently reco
27

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 20/01/2009 22:18:06
# 31 continued.........

The "New Deal" wasn't a 100% success in every but the reality is that "doing nothing" wasn't a political option in 1932. Despite the so-called failure of the "New Deal", the USA was sufficiently recovered by 1941 to fight WWII.

Incidentally, FDR won three free elections during that period so the charge of "fascism" doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny.
28

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 20/01/2009 22:29:55
# 30 Under Siege -

Deny it all you like but nobody forced US banks to pile into sub-prime lending to the extent that they did.

I also mentioned, in my posting, that the lending bonanza included other forms of lending (apart from sub-prime). Indeed, sub-prime comprised a relatively small percentage of overall lending, which, I repeat, was completely free from government interference. So even if (as you say) the banks somehow had their arms twisted into making high volumes of juicy, high-margin, safely-collateralised property lending to sub-prime borrowers, then sub-prime was only part of the story.

I also neglected to mention the role of unscrupulous private mortgage brokers in the US real estate lending bonanza.

As for Dubya being distant from Greenspan..... give me a break. Do you seriously believe that Greenspan and the other economic policy wonks weren't under political pressure from the White House to prevent a downturn after the "seismic shock" of 9/11?
29

Erskine M,

New York, NY 20/01/2009 22:35:05
Which is worse for the economy? - a "snake-oil salesman" spreading a message of hope and hard work - or a fear-monger predicting apocalyptic doom?
30

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 20/01/2009 23:04:33
# 34 Erskine M, New York, NY -

Well said, sir.

Incidentally, Obama's inauguration speech was interesting. I particularly enjoyed the line about restoring "science to its rightful place" (an implicit poke in the eye for the creationists, I think).

He also said that "a nation cannot prosper when it favours only the prosperous", and rejected the "false choice between our safety and ideals".

All good, commonsense stuff of which FDR would have been proud.

No doubt Obama will disappoint many of his supporters in due course but if he delivers just one-tenth of what he's promised, he will be ten times more successful than Bush, whose main gift has been to provide material for stand-up comedians.
31

Under Siege,

20/01/2009 23:54:57
Well, just like FDR did, turn a recession into a depression, Chairman O will do the same. Interesting how the unemployment rate was higher in '38 than in '32 after 6 years of FDR's bungling.

Funny how history repeats itself, no matter how hard the revisionists try...

Welcome to the new United Socialist States of America.

After all, Hitler gave great speeches also.
32

Erskine M,

21/01/2009 00:04:05
That's wrong - the unemployment rate in 1932 was 23.6% in 1938 it was 19%

- Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
33

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 21/01/2009 07:40:45
# 38 Cynicus in Exile -

"Slippery customer"?! For stating a point of view?!

Wow.

For the record, here's what I said earlier (# 5):-

"There are some valid points in GW's article, eg the comparison between the unrealistically high expectations piled on both Blair and Obama when they took office. Disillusioned followers will soon multiply as they discover that Barack Obama, like all US presidents, is as beholden as any US president to deeply-entrenched corporate interests and special-interest group lobbyists."

As you can see, I did not suggest that AIPAC is a corporate interest. I suggested that it's a special interest group (in fact I repeated that in # 12).

And I stick to my view, as explained above, that corporate America, same as with all other US Prsidents, will find ways to influence Obama, notwithstanding his impressive internet funding campaign. I already mentioned Greg Palast's work in this respect, plus an example (Wall Street), both of which you've chosen to overlook. I suggest - in a non-patronising way - that you familiarise yourself with Palast's work. He's got quite a good website.

You may believe in the simple equation that internet funding campaign = clean government everafter. I am more wary and, er, cynical. Maybe you should be too, and live up to your nom de plume.

Meanwhile, if you think that I "got it wrong" to suggest that "disillusioned Obama supporters will soon multiply", again, this may be near-blasphemy to some right now but it's my honest belief, based on past experience, that the burden of expectations is simply too high. Same as it was for Blair.

I wish Obama well (he's an improvement on Bush) but he can never live up to the hype.

You may disagree with all of the above but that's what I think.

BTW Teemackell the Scribe is more than capable of standing up for himself. And I agree with his comment (# 7) on the "New Deal" debate, as my subsequent postings should indicate, therefore I don't view him
34

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 21/01/2009 07:43:35
/....... # 39 (continued)

BTW Teemackell the Scribe is more than capable of standing up for himself. And I agree with his comment (# 7) on the "New Deal" debate, as my subsequent postings should indicate, therefore I don't view him as "an adversary" in that respect.

The article by GW was about snake-oil economics. Any comments on that?
35

Ally,

London 21/01/2009 14:44:38
Can anyone take a couple of minutes to explain why, exactly, Gerald Warner is still in paid employment?
Judging from this thread it's to provide the Scotsman with a wingnut right-wing readership in the USA, but I can't imagine that brings in the advertising revenue. I'm not sure I remember reading anything remotely positive from this bitter, poisoned and lonely old man for many years.

At a time when so many are losing their jobs, it does seem rather unjust that he still has one.
36

Itchy,

21/01/2009 19:58:17
#27 "The role of big business in US politics (before, during and after the four-yearly razzmatazz of the Presidential beauty parades) is well documented. I recommend the work of US investigative journalist Greg Palast, particularly "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (ISBN 1-84119-714-9) for some real-life examples of how big business influenced US governments!"

#32 "Incidentally, FDR won three free elections during that period so the charge of "fascism" doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny."

Yes it does if FDR was copying Mussolini's economic policy.

Greg Palast is a brazen liar and a fascist.

#31"As for the "New Deal" hampering US economic recovery during the 1930s, let's just say that the jury is out"

Wrong! It was a total failure because of the skyrocketing taxes, the unprecedented interventionism and the wreckless overspending.
37

Itchy,

21/01/2009 20:03:37
#31 "Unsurprisingly, you ignored my point about the "New Deal" helping to defuse extremist politics but few doubt that Germany's economic collapse encouraged the rise of communism and Nazism. Some leftwing critics of the "New Deal" even characterise FDR as a capitalist lackey for helping to preserve the status quo!"

The New Deal did not defuse extremist politics. The German economy collapses because it was almost under full state control. Hitler merely finished the job began by the Nationalists and the Socialists by implementing National Socialism.

BTW the New Deal really began under Hoover whose tax and spend policies were continued on with by FDR. You also ignore the hyperprotectionism brought in by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
"The idea that "the Clintons" (or anyone) could somehow "force" US banks to lend to anyone is, I'm afraid, another Republican myth to rationalise / ignore the failure of free-market policies."

Total dishonesty on your part by ignoring the multitude of taxes, regulation and interventionism in the American economy.

38

Itchy,

21/01/2009 20:11:23
#35 "He also said that "a nation cannot prosper when it favours only the prosperous","

That statement is Marxist.
39

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 21/01/2009 21:18:55
# 43 Itchy said: "The German economy collapsed because it was almost under full state control."

Nothing to do with WWI reparations then?

"Greg Palast is a brazen liar and a fascist."

Again with the insults! Actually Greg Palast knows his onions. In his own words, he "witnessed the birth of Thatcherism before Thatcher - there, at the University of Chicago, in the early 1970s, as the only American member of an elite group later known as the 'Chicago Boys'. Professor (Milton) Friedman was the economic god who walked amongst us.... Most of 'the Boys' were Latin Americans, a strange collection in white turtleneck sweaters and dark shades, right out of the movie 'Missing', who would return to Chile and make it into a Friedmanite laboratory...."

Palast's explanations of globalisation, oil politics, Enron, US electoral fraud, the IMF, the World Bank, Pat Robertson and other phenomena are far from being "fascist" (whatever that's supposed to mean). They are extremely well-researched and commercially-aware, as you might expect of an MBA-qualified investigative journalist. They also tally with the known facts.

Re: interventionism in the US economy. Your position is extreme; it seems that nothing but completely unfettered market forces would satisfy you. Fair enough. But holding a more leftwing point of view than yours doesn't make me a "communist"; it makes nearly EVERYONE a "communist" in your eyes.

"#32 "Incidentally, FDR won three free elections during that period so the charge of "fascism" doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny."

Yes it does if FDR was copying Mussolini's economic policy."

No, it doesn't! Even if FDR copied Mussolini's economic policy in all respects (which he didn't), he won three free elections (1932, 1936, 1940). How does that make him a "fascist"?

Or do elections only count when the right guy wins? Maybe you believe in Stalin's dictum that it's not the votes that count, it's the men who count the votes....
40

Andrew76,

Missouri, USA 22/01/2009 18:05:06
A wonderfully, terribly accurate article. However, I fear the comments section is getting a bit off track. Look, the fact is this: The U.S. - I know, because I live here - has not had a free market economy for well over 100 years now. What we have is known as a "managed market," or "mixed economy."
The current economic crisis is 100% government created. End of story. De-regulation? What de-regulation? Are you aware that no significant "de-regulation" has occured since the reign of Clinton I?

Bush was a horrible president, mainly because he strayed wildly from his supposed conservative, small government roots. He did seemingly everything to expand state power and control both at home and abroad... well, his administration did under his watch.
When you have a "free market" with a central bank whose job is to arbitrarily fix interest rates and print money out of thin air, then a free market you do not have.
Obama, and mainly his supporters have a bizarre, unfettered belief in centrallized control and power over individuals, typical of all statists.

Statism, mind you, is the large umbrella which covers communism, socialism and fascism.

Further, government created jobs? Is anyone paying attention? Where will they get the money? Does anyone understand, I mean TRULY understand that governments have no money, the earn nothing and produce nothing. They get their money by borrowing, taxing or inflating the currency. That is it. All three choices are bad.

If the people of a country are hurting economically, you do not take their money away from them so you can later give it back to them via paycheck through a government created job. This kind of logic is simply breathtaking in its ridiculousness, it almost seems impossible that anyone could fall for it.
"No, you don't understand, you give me more of that little bit of money you have left, then I'm going to create a job for you to do and give you that money back."

There is no
41

Itchy,

22/01/2009 20:46:46
"45 Nothing to do with WWI reparations then?"

The reparations were not that severe and were rarely enforced. The reparations did not force the Weimar Government to wreck the currency between 1919 and 1923 and they also did not force the government to keep increasing regulation until the economy was under full control.

"Again with the insults! Actually Greg Palast knows his onions."

He is a liar and a fascist in his economics. He supports an economy which is privately owned and state controlled.

"Palast's explanations of globalisation, oil politics, Enron, US electoral fraud, the IMF, the World Bank, Pat Robertson "

The IMF and World Bank are anti-capitalist. Enron was the recipient of government interventionism, oil is almost under full state control worldwide and Pat Robertson is a theocratic anti-capitalist.

42

Itchy,

22/01/2009 20:50:23
#45 "market forces would satisfy you. Fair enough. But holding a more leftwing point of view than yours doesn't make me a "communist"; it makes nearly EVERYONE a "communist" in your eyes." Your marxism and your cheerleading for Castro makes you a communist. Your blaming free markets for the failure of interventionism is also a trait of marxists.

"#32 "Yes it does if FDR was copying Mussolini's economic policy."

No, it doesn't! Even if FDR copied Mussolini's economic policy in all respects (which he didn't), he won three free elections (1932, 1936, 1940). How does that make him a "fascist"?"

So even though his economic policy is fascist, he is not a fascist. Words have no meaning to you.

"Or do elections only count when the right guy wins? Maybe you believe in Stalin's dictum that it's not the votes that count, it's the men who count the votes...."

Since when does simply winning an election make things right? How many elections are there in Cuba?
43

Itchy,

Lochgelly 22/01/2009 20:51:51
#45 "Re: interventionism in the US economy. Your position is extreme; it seems that nothing but completely unfettered market forces would satisfy you"

Yay for extremism! Extremist is a smear on anyone who is consistent. It allows lefties to paint any consistent person as Adolf Hitler.

Yay for market forces!
44

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 24/01/2009 10:29:10
Andrew76, Missouri said:

"Look, the fact is this: The U.S. - I know, because I live here - has not had a free market economy for well over 100 years now. What we have is known as a "managed market," or "mixed economy"...."

True. Large sections of the USA are dependent on government expenditure, eg defence industries / the military. Ironically, these are usually the areas most patriotically opposed to "socialism".

"The current economic crisis is 100% government created. End of story."

Er..... not so. As I said in #29 and #33, the current "credit crunch" largely resulted from so-called "light-touch regulation", demanded and exploited by private sector players such as Wall Street banks, lawyers, ratings agencies, mortgage brokers and the general public. Explain why that isn't so and you'll be flying in the face of reality.

"De-regulation? What de-regulation? Are you aware that no significant "de-regulation" has occured since the reign of Clinton I?"

Perhaps you are thinking in terms of pinning the blame on one President or other. Let's take a concrete example: electricity deregulation. Greg Palast explains how Bush Senior started the process that allowed private companies to overturn FDR's old regulatory system which capped monopoly profits, was publicly-accountable and, in Palast's words, "told electricity companies when to stand, sit and salute".

Deregulation took place under three US presidents: Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr, but it was under "Dubya" that the chickens started coming home to roost, eg Enron.

"Does anyone understand, I mean TRULY understand that governments have no money, the earn nothing and produce nothing."

Do you understand that governments don't just sit on the money? They spend it too. You may disagree with that but there are plenty of successful mixed economies, eg the USA became a superpower.

Andrew76 - mixed economies are here to stay, whether we like it or not. But big business is far from being powe
45

Bolivarian Scot,

24/01/2009 10:30:41
/....... # 50 (continued)

Andrew76 - mixed economies are here to stay, whether we like it or not. But big business is far from being powerless in the face of big government.
46

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 24/01/2009 10:46:14
# 48 Itchy said: "Your marxism and your cheerleading for Castro makes you a communist. Your blaming free markets for the failure of interventionism is also a trait of marxists."

False logic. Plenty of people criticise free markets. Not all of them are "communists" or "Marxists". Why do you have so much difficulty accepting this?

I admire Castro for various reasons - standing up to US imperialism etc. So does most of the Third World, incidentally. He's a hero to them for supporting their independence movements and challenging "the West" and its global control of resources and financial systems via the IMF, World Bank etc.

However, I've said before, in previous postings, that the Soviet-style command economy had a malign effect on Cuba, in many respects, and that recent market reforms are welcome.

I also pointed out that Cuba, far from being a basketcase, has some exportable economic assets, such as healthcare and biotechnology, that simply didn't exist before the Revolution. They've also discovered oil, which should be useful as that finite resource runs out elsewhere.

"Since when does simply winning an election make things right? How many elections are there in Cuba?"

Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it: elections good if your guy wins, bad if he doesn't. Elections in Cuba? Not by our definition; it's a one-party state. But there is a high degree of local participation / decision-making.

And how much choice do we have anyway, between two basically pro-market / centre-right / parties?!
47

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 24/01/2009 11:17:11
# 48 Itchy said: "So even though [FDR's] economic policy is fascist, he is not a fascist. Words have no meaning to you."

Superficial similarities to Mussolini are, frankly, irrelevant and misleading. Mussolini "made the trains run on time"; should we oppose trains too?

The fact is: FDR received criticism from the left for failing to nationalise banks etc when he had the chance c1932. You know.... 1932.... when free-market paralysis prevented millions of savers from getting access to their deposits, the unbalanced US economy was shrinking faster than anyone could imagine, etc. Hence the first "New Deal".

"[Greg Palast] is a liar and a fascist in his economics. He supports an economy which is privately owned and state controlled."

All this proves is that you haven't read Greg Palast, eg his chapters on Hugo Chavez and PDVSA, globalisation, the IMF / World Bank ("interchangeable masks of a single governance system") etc.

You said: "The IMF and World Bank are anti-capitalist. Enron was the recipient of government interventionism, oil is almost under full state control worldwide and Pat Robertson is a theocratic anti-capitalist."

You are having a laugh, right?! The IMF and the World Bank have promoted private enterprise (bypassing local democracy). Enron exploited corrupt politicians for private gain. Privately-owned "oil majors" in the USA and UK are amongst the biggest players. And Pat Robertson is an out-and-out, unapologetic businessman.

# 49 Itchy: "Extremist is a smear on anyone who is consistent." Not so. There are plenty of examples of extreme leftwingers becoming extreme rightwingers (less so in the opposite direction). Churchill himself switched parties. Sir Hartley Shawcross was nicknamed "Sir Shortly Floorcross".

And Mussolini himself started off as a socialist (c1908-1917).

"Yay for market forces!"

Believe it or not, I am not wholly opposed to market forces in certain areas. The big debate is where you draw the
48

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 24/01/2009 11:20:58
/........ #53 (continued)


"Yay for market forces!"

Believe it or not, I am not wholly opposed to market forces in certain areas. The big debate is where you draw the line, or indeed whether any line should be drawn at all. You clearly fall into the latter category but history, and reality, places you firmly in a minority.

As I pointed out already (several times), even Pinochet didn't go so far as to nationalise the Chilean state copper company (the main engine of their export economy).

I'm happy to let you have the last word on this thread, certain in the knowledge that neither of us has persuaded the other!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.