When I sat down to write a column this week, I didn't know what I was going to write about, so I started scanning the headlines, looking for inspiration. I read quite a few stories on how the economy was recovering. That's inspiring. For example, a Bloomberg headline reads:
Reminds me of the old saying, "The Great Depression wasn't so bad...if you had a job."
Here's a few other headlines that concerned our obviously recovering economy:
Good news, right? I mean, the president's plan to recover from the greatest economic meltdown ever to face mankind has worked. We are on the path to a brighter future.
Here are some different headlines:
- Bright Hope for Future is Seen in Prediction
- Auto Sales Will Be Better This Year Than Last
- Business Tide Coming In, Schwab Says
Those headlines were "published in the Joliet Herald-News during the first years of the depression." Remember, back in the 1930s, the top economists and leaders told America that they were looking at "a mild bump, perhaps merely a correction of the market, or in any case, no worse than the recession the nation suffered after World War I." Let government's programs work and it would all be over soon.
Here's a few more headlines. See if you can tell me which are from today and which are from the 1930s:
- Governor cuts his own pay by 10 percent
- City Employee's Salaries Cut Seven Percent
- New York Mayor Proposes Budget Cuts, Layoffs
- City Reduces Working Force to Meet Crisis
- Coroner Says Staff Will Be Working Without Pay
- City Employees Have Not Been Paid in Months
Tough to tell the difference, isn't it? The first, third and fifth headlines are from today, while the second, fourth and sixth are from the 1930s.
Something else I read recently concerned the conservative's concern over the economy and his doubt of the current "recovery." A leftist commenter compared the vocal doubt of a conservative to that of a mother with Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS), a mental illness "that involves the exaggeration or fabrication of illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker." An interesting comparison, but essentially nothing more than an Alinksyesque attempt to marginalize dissent and critical thinking on a complex subject.
It isn't a desire for attention or denial of facts that drives doubt on the right, but a firm grasp of the history of socialism's failure. The Institute for Economic Affairs writes:
Relaxation of monetary policy was the main reason for a brief and limited recovery after 1933. But, argue the authors,
"FDR’s interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."
As a result, the US had arguably the deepest and longest-lasting depression of all the major industrial countries in the 1930s.
Today, rather than looking at lowering taxes, thereby allowing the taxpayer to keep their money and increasing the amount of capital a person has to save, spend or invest, the government is looking at massively increasing the amount of looting it already does. For example, the Baucus Bill alone calls for $507 billion in new taxes and fees to help pay for its $829 billion price tag.
And Sen. Barbara Boxer is working on a wealth redistribution scheme which President Obama brags will cause energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket." Plainly speaking, the Congress plans on taxing the energy producers for creating electricity. Energy producers will also have massive expenses in retrofitting existing plants to meet the requirements of the law. The energy companies will then pass those costs down to you and me. In this video, President Obama admits he knows this will happen.
What do you think that will do to consumption? What impact will that have on economic recovery?
There is also the still rising unemployment. As Steve Wynn pointed out, if the recovery is to truly happen, people have to have jobs. Government's role in that happening is lowering spending, lowering taxes and getting out of the way. They are doing the exact opposite on all three counts.
It's intellectually lazy to look at a few signs of recovery and conclude the worst is behind us, especially considering the avalanche of taxation and spending this liberal government intends. That's why it is important to look to the past for context. Economic leaders and heads of industry have told us before the worst was behind us, only to spend the next few years watching the economy spiral into a Great Depression. It's not mental illness that drives me to conclude the same is possible today.
It's a firm grasp of history.
Duane Lester's Bio
Duane Lester is a former Navy journalist turned blogger and podcaster. He also writes at All American Blogger and hosts All American Radio on RFC Radio . You can follow him on Twitter at @bodhi1 .
Posted
10-19-2009 12:01 AM
Link to this post: