President Bush has lost the right to say this.
Oh, please
Previous post: On Peter Morici On the Trade Deficit
Next post: The credit crunch
where orders emerge
EconTalk Podcast
Recent Episodes-
where orders emerge
Previous post: On Peter Morici On the Trade Deficit
Next post: The credit crunch
Recent Episodes
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 39 comments }
Oh come now, Professor Roberts–what's a little $700 billion bailout between free marketeers?
Holy crap. No kidding, Russ. He might as well have said "do as I say, not as I do."
What's more, he SHOULDN'T say this, because the next person who says it will be laughed at for parroting what George Bush said. I suspect that President Bush is so unpopular that lending his support to anything is a negative.
He's not a free marketeer. He's a faux marketeer.
It's amazing that the conventional wisdom among many seems to hold that 'President Bush's free market philosophy' is to blame for this crisis. Reality check: Is there a single area of the government that has not expanded its reach in Bush's tenure?
It reminds me of how Richard Nixon is remembered as an arch-conservative, pro-capitalist president…yet he actually instituted wage and price controls. And he signed far-reaching, expansionist legislation that brought us HMOs, Title IX, etc. Again, what area of our government didn't expand its reach during Nixon's tenure?
I wish I could comprehend the intellectual acrobatics that permit the President to say such things and yet press for the policies being implemented now. To me it's Orwellian doublethink acted out on a world stage.
I wish I could understand it, because his basic view of economics–with all of its internal contradictions–*is* the governing viewpoint where whole-hearted dirigisme isn't dominant. Do I just need to read more Keynes or something?
He still makes the same fatal mistake. He doesn't want more government, just "smarter government." There is no such thing as smart government. He obviously still believes as he always has that government is the answer even with every counter-example offered.
Ugh, as much as I like to be optimistic, this does not bode well for the future of historians siding with calling Bush an interventionist.
But look at all the deregulation, laissez-faire economic policy, fiscal discipline, and smaller government that he's given to the US! George Bush clearly represents the last beacon of hope for us small government people!
Although I have to admit some of his judge appointments have been surprisingly free market.
The conventional wisdom is right, but let's write "Bush's 'free market' philosophy". His lip service is probably worse than nothing. If he'd come out and say, "I'm really a fascist at heart, just like dear old granddad," the rhetoric would be less confusing. Once, I wondered how fascists became identified with "capitalism" rather than "socialism". Now, I know.
I heard Paulson on the news saying that, he is not going to apologize for changing direction as the situation changes. It seems honest enough, except that the embedded message is simply that he is is not going to apologize for doing whatever the hell he wants to do – and he doesn't have to.
I am convinced that politicians suffer from a variant of the same mental illness that guys like Ted Bundy have. The power/domination serial killer/rapist typically tries to go into law enforcement (and is rejected) prior to taking up their evil trade. I think the ones who succeed end up getting their jollies from pushing the citizenry around and are diverted from the power to hurt individuals by the greater pleasure derived from hurting large numbers of people.
They split the world up into two groups, the rulers and the ruled. They frequently have the manic notion that they are the only ones in the world who are "awake" who see things as they are, and that the people around them are befuddled fools.
I'm absolutely convinced that George Bush simultaneously knows he is committing very evil acts (a devout Christian who routinely and with impunity violates three of the ten commandments must know that he is well off the path), and is deluding himself into thinking he is a good guy.
George Bush understands the rhetoric of freedom. He can parrot it passably well. But when the rubber meets the road, for example the brief period when the U.S. Army had no effective opposition in Iraq, he demonstrates that he loves power. The man believes that he knows best, that people should listen to him. He wants to be the central planner, the Road-to-Serfdom big-man whom everybody turns to. That business about being "The Decider" is what George Bush is all about.
Like Woodrow Wilson, he may come to rue all the government growth he spearheaded, but I doubt it.
I figure if he came to his senses and realized all the misery and destruction he has caused, he would eat a whole vial of sleeping pills washed down with a bottle of whiskey.
Bush is trying to get some leverage over the G20 meeting this weekend. I'm not sure if it will work. Hopefully it does – the last thing this world needs is a global regulator with some kind of Greenspan at its helm.
Not bigger, but smarter
Not socialism, but compassion
Not fascism, but orderly direction
Not intervention, but helpful guidance
Not nationalization, but temporary investment
Like almost everybody, Bush loves the upside of freedom with its tremendous wealth creation. Also like almost everybody, he falsely believes that economic disasters are best managed by coercively opposing freedom's regulatory mechanisms.
What people need to learn is:
1. coercive economic solutions imperil the beloved upside of freedom.
2. freedom always finds the fairest, and likely the least painful, solution to all economic problems–even those problems caused by coercion.
He's lending legitimacy to the liars who are blaming the free market for the present crisis.
Was it Braveheart who said to the Nobleman, "You think people exist to give you position. I think your position exists to give them freedom.". Most politicians by nature have the former mindset-regardless of party.
What would you rather he say, Russ?
That is akin to saying that those who have used drugs cannot warn of their evils. Prodigal though he may be, we should welcome him back to the fold.
At this point Bush should STFU.
To be frank, the best thing that Bush could do would be to resign.
The second best thing would be to announce that the bailouts were a mistake and that he was asking for Paulsen's resignation and to ask Congress to repeal the bailout bill.
The third best thing he could do is to STFU. That right wing collectivist has done enough damage to the human civilization. He needs to stop now.
Ted,
What should Bush say instead?
How about:
"I'm know I'm going to sound like a hypocrite for saying this but free market strides have taken a serious blow over the last eight years. I think we should proceed with caution"
…to say the least.
A politician losing the right to be a hypocrite and talk out of both sides of his mouth?
Why…I've never heard of such a thing.
Ted:
May I take a crack at that softball? I would prefer he say something along these lines:
"Everyone knows that it's better to rip a bandaid off than to peel it slowly. Free markets work better, too, when you cut your losses rather than dragging it out. Accordingly, I am directing the Treasury to cease all efforts to paper over the failures of any company, regardless of size. The funds that would have been used will instead go to expanding Food Stamps; the harvest remains good so no-one need starve.
"In addition, I am directing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. This was a dumb war. Saddam and his sons are dead, that's victory, our mission is accomplished, and the money that we were spending there will also go into Food Stamps.
"I repeat, no-one will starve. That's the best I know how to do.
"Thank you for giving me the opportunity to server. I have been honored to be your President."
Bush could rescue his reputation even between now and January if he did that. Anybody here think he will?
I didn't think so.
If Karl Marx wants to come back from the dead and sing the praises of free markets, he still has the right to do so. Anybody, anywhere, anytime has the right to say damn near anything they please and that certainly includes standing on the world stage advocating free markets.
Maybe he is having second thoughts. hah. All in all though i will disagree: its never to late to take the honorable path and any additional obstacles such as this could be beneficial.
It is possible that this is also the beginning of constructing a narrative of distinguishing the two parties and slowly but surely, distancing the right from these mistakes while focusing blame on the left.
If I was an adviser that is how I would run it.
Let's emphasize as little as possible what, if anything, the word "right" means. The Republicons fumbled the ball, so we'll just rip their "right" shirts of them and put 'em on somebody else. That way, those of us on the "right" are always "winners".
Yeah. You should go into politics.
That is a very Double-Plus Ungood comment.
Sadly, given the men and women who have recently run for the presidency, it might be reasonable for Mr. Bush to conclude that he is a free marketer. While I might give President Bush a four on a scale of one to ten, it is hard to think of someone who would show better: McCain, Obama, H. Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Huckabee, Edwards? I might be wrong, but I don’t think so. We who love markets, the prosperity and freedom they bring have a lot of work to do.
HEY C'MON, IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO CHANGE!
Brooks M. Wilson,
Why do you overlook Ron Paul? Not only did he advocate free markets far better than George W Bush, he also opposed trusting the Government to decide who to torture.
T L Holaday,
Forgive me, but my list is partial and only contains a few of the names of major candidates.
TL Holaday – when it comes to labor markets (immigration) and free trade, Bush has Ron Paul beat hands down.
I have disagreements with Ron Paul, but Bush doesn't have him beat on any hand, because you can't believe a word that comes out of Bush's mouth.
The belief in "regulation" over the market, that freedom corrupts and power sanctifies, is faith in fascism, or, in the words of an old socialist, that "The state is God."
When I first saw this, I was instantly irritated, what with all the "Bush hatred" out there. But when I found out what he said, turns out I agree with Roberts. One of the replies said that since Bush is so hated, anything he suggests will be met with derision. Wrong! He is only "hated" among liberals and their dupes. Yes, he's no conservative. But he's still better than a Democrat (liberal, socialist). McCain LOST the election because he REFUSED to say meaningful truths about Obama. Obama didn't beat him. He beat himself.
Scapegoating greedy capitalists rather than greedy Jews is simply Nazism with a liberal face.
Well, "God" typically is a thinly veiled icon of the state in state religions, and most of the religions floating around these days descend from state religions. I don't identify with "atheism", but I also reject these religions, so I can't much dispute Marx in this sense.
Marx ultimately concluded that a state is inescapable, at least in the "short term", in his theory of history, so his followers had to coopt it for their own ideological purposes. In his atheistic way of thinking, Marx saw no point in the pretending any supernatural inspiration behind his statutory decrees. To this extent, I admire his integrity. I don't see any supernatural inspiration behind any statutory decrees.
I doubt that God whispers in the ears of statesmen. I rather suppose that statesmen are delusional in this way, and I suppose that Moses and Muhammad were statesmen and that Jesus would have been if he could have been. None of these men spoke to God any more than you or I may speak to God, and none of them was God. I can't imagine any greater arrogance.
I've rather concluded that while states may be inescapable, I have little to gain by cooperating with them, except insofar as I'll cooperate with any mugger in a dark ally holding a gun to my head. Peace be with you. Amen.