houndawg wrote:UNI88 wrote:
Just because a person's personal biases have caused them to make up their minds and prevent them from considering alternatives doesn't make those alternatives any less valid.
First, economic cycles are natural. The Federal Reserve has worked very hard to try and smooth out those ups and downs but they are going to happen regardless of public policy (by the Fed or Executive or Legislative branches). This downturn was going to happen sometime regardless of who was POTUS and what their policies were.
Second, a President's economic policy typically has very little effect on the economy while they are in office. The true impact usually isn't felt until 10+ years after the policy was implemented. I say typically because I think the cycle might be shortening and because I believe that the impact of Bush's tax cuts combined with his spending like a drunken sailor in Manilla on the deficit has had a destabilizing affect on markets and economies around the globe which has made the current downturn much worse.
I've made the argument on AGS and won't completely repeat it here that Reagan's tax cuts created the environment and incentives that made the economic boom of the 90's possible. Clinton gets far too much credit for that boom (although his taking advantage of the situation and reducing the deficit was a positive factor). Without those tax cuts would people like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, etc. have started and built their companies to where they are; creating thousands and thousands of jobs and turning many of their shareholders into wealthy people? Without those tax cuts Gates would probably be working as a Senior Director at IBM.
Third, as mentioned above, government spending has contributed just as much if not more to the current economic crisis as tax cuts. Obama is continuing to spend our money like a drunken sailor. While this might or might not provide a short-term boost to the economy it ignores the long-term impact of an out-of-control deficit on the U.S. and world economies.
Fourth, tax cuts are not the root of the problem. Greed is! The same greed that caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give out loans to people who couldn't really afford them. The same greed that caused banks to package these loans and sell them as can't miss investments. The same greed that caused (and still causes) companies to focus on short-term stock market results rather than building a company for the future. The home loan crisis has really helped to exasperate a natural downturn in the economy and as a result, Franklin Raines and Congress are just as culpable in this mess as the Chairman of AIG is. Now you want me to trust that same Congress to fix the current mess? Pardon me if I'm a skeptical.
A socialistic economy run by big government is just trading one evil master for another. Greed for profit will be replaced by greed for power and control. Government regulation of the market is not a bad thing but government management of the market is.
You said exasperate.
I'm with you 100%. Einstein said that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result. The chips should have been allowed to fall where they would, no pun intended. Unfortunately we're being forced to prop up the carcass of free-market capitalism instead of letting it die it's natural death.
BTW, how can you have capitalism without the greed you assert to be the real problem? Greed is to capitalism what oxygen is to carbon-based life forms.
IMO, free-market capitalism is nowhere near its deathbed. And if it is what is going to replace it?
Greed makes unrestricted capitalism dangerous. The trick is finding the right amount of government regulation to keep it inline without overregulating and restricting the growth and innovation that it engenders. I understand the appeal of the European socialist model (economic equality & fairness are highminded ideals) but I feel that they discourage the hard work and free thinking innovation that have made this country great. For example, I believe that when it comes to energy indepence and the automobile, the socialistic model leads to something like the hybrid (evolutionary innovation) while more fairly applying tax incentives to a capitalist model will lead to a revolutionary alternative to the internal combustion engine that reduces both our dependence on foreign oil and pollution.
Will free market capitalism create haves and have-nots? Absolutely! I'm ok with that as long as the have-nots have the opportunity (access to education) to improve their lot and join the haves if they choose to put in the effort required.
On a separate point, I'm with you in that Clinton > Bush. Bush might have had a much tougher situation as President but his out of control spending and mishandling of the majority of the Iraq War are major failures that can't be overlooked.
