(The leader) was "wholly ignorant" of economics...What (the leader) did know was politics and how to achieve public support-(he) was an immensely popular leader with approval ratings even Bill Clinton would envy-and early on, he made it clear that economics would be subordinate to politics.The result, of course, was catastrophe. Don't expect our press to know anything at all about this subject, of course.
...
In his highly influential (history book), British historian A.J.P. Taylor similarly gave the (political party) credit for creating widespread prosperity, concluding, "The (party's) secret was...freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics. Government spending provided all the happy effects of mild inflation; while political (control), with its destruction of (political enemies) and rigorous exchange control, prevented such unfortunate consequences as a rise in wages, or in prices."
(A disagreeing historian's) version of things more accurately reflects what was really happening in (the nation during this time). (The leader's) economic policies were systematically wrecking the (nation's) economy and were rapidly painting him into a corner were his only choices were (very bad).
(The leader), argues Kershaw, was deathly afraid of inflation and a repetition of (previous bad years). Nevertheless, he had to reduce unemployment or he wasn't going to last long enough to (rule the nation)...Tax cuts were also out of the question because he believed they led to less revenue not more growth.
(The leader's) solution for ... unemployment problems was ... massive deficit spending. In fact, by Kershaw's account, the (Party's) government guaranteed (huge amounts of money for) massive road building, subsidies to the auto industry, lots more bureaucrats to enforce all the new controls and regulations...
Put your answers in the comments.
5 comments:
Hitler and the Nazis. His economics were something of a Ponzi scheme where he had to keep taking over other countries to fund his spending on guns & butter.
I'm going with FDR.
I'd be inclined to go with Hitler as well. Most of that could be used to describe a lot of political leaders in the 1930s though.
Apart from the road building and auto industry, it could have been Stalin. With the interstates, FDR.
Had hints of Ramsay McDonald or perhaps Baldwin in the UK. "Pig Iron Bob" Menzies in Australia. M. J. Savage in New Zealand.
Move it ahead to the late 1940s and it could even have been Mao to some extent.
Mind you, GWB did pretty much everything the exact opposite of what you've described. External inflation is allowed to the extend that the $US is worth about 1/2 what it was when he was elected. Roads, bridges and levees are allowed to decompose while the unemployment rate is around 5%...
Funny, I'd never realised until you pointed it out that Bush is actually worse than Mao, Stalin AND Hitler.
You live and you learn.
I first thought FDR. Worst President the nation has ever seen.
But then I started thinkng Nixon.
So I'm going to have it both ways.
I'm not sure of the answer--most every populist tax and spend demagogue has fit this pattern. But, Bismarck has been credited with starting the "recent" crush of such schemes-back in the 1880's he created social security and retirement plans to soothe the public and "bribe" them into accepting his authoritarian Prussian-style government. The public accepted this personal security in exchange for personal liberty and "learned" to accept totalitarian leaders. The rest is history. And, We are repeating it.
Post a Comment