Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
I do not see any comparisons with 1932, when the unemployment rate was moving towards 30% and the economy was in free fall, having lost almost 30% of its value and still falling.
|
The economy was doing worse, obviously, but the country was at peace and the national debt was much lower. Our industrial infrastructure was far stronger, too, since we had not shipped capacity overseas. Nor did we face any raw materials shortages. There were hideous threats to peace and safety looming, but they were years in the future and few recognized or understood them. The only real problem hurting us was maldistribution of wealth that resulted in slack consumer demand. If wages could be raised, and the economy jump-started, all would be well.
I had some very memorable talks with an old woman a few years ago who lived through the Depression. She pointed out that for most people, FDR's claim in his first inaugural that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" was very true. The economy was in the toilet and unemployment was horribly high, but the great majority of people still had jobs, and so for most the only problem was the fear that they wouldn't keep them, that they would be next. Today, instead of high unemployment rates, we have sagging real wages and the loss of
good jobs which are being replaced by
poor ones, a reduction in the quality rather than the quantity of employment. And it is affecting far more people as a percentage of the work force than the Great Depression did, although those unemployed by the Depression were affected more acutely.
Plus, we are not at peace, the federal budget is a fiscal nightmare, we have lost a lot of industrial capacity, and we face resource shortages and environmental disasters that did not loom in 1932. On balance, I'd say we have just as dangerous a situation, if not worse.
Quote:
He certainly will not bring people together. Quite the opposite. His far left policies, his creepy associations with the radical left, his open contempt for business and his open contempt for those who disagree with him guarantee that he will divide the country even further.
It is a frighthening and exhausting thought
|
But the same could be, and was, said about Roosevelt, who was accused by laissez-faire advocates of being a socialist. And although he certainly wasn't a socialist, he
was well to the left of any candidate from either party that had run up to that time.
It's impossible to truly unite the
entire country, and Obama won't. But he will, I think, unite the majority of us, leaving out only the economic right, those who continue to believe in Reaganomics and supply-side theory, and those opposed to environmentalism. Since those are exactly the positions that need to be repudiated, failure to bring such people on board is
de rigeur and unavoidable. Uniting the rest of the country will suffice, and I believe that much he can do.