1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11043/2nd-time-as-farce-george-bush-as-herbert-hoover/

2nd Time as Farce — George Bush as Herbert Hoover

November 16, 2009 by

George W. Bush continues to re-capitulate the arch of the Herbert Hoover disgrace — botching up the economy with massive government interventions and pathological mis-regulation, then positioning himself as the poster-boy and herald of free markets and limited government.

{ 11 comments }

Matt November 16, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Hmmm…

http://www.hoover.org/

Anonymous Coward November 16, 2009 at 8:39 pm

I’m sure Dubya is sympathetic to Austrian economics… he loves kangaroos!

Brad November 16, 2009 at 11:38 pm

Is George W. Bush in the pay of the left or is he really as stupid as he appears? This is the very narrative the left wants, in order to demonize “laissez-faire” once again and blame the failures of interventionist “middle of the road” policies on the free market. We need to do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t work this time. If the left succeeds again, it will be 40 years before we make any progress against the myth of “laissez-faire” Bush.

Conza88 November 16, 2009 at 11:51 pm

There is nothing ‘accidental’ about this. It is a calculated move / propaganda by the political elite.

Clear as day.

Tracy Saboe November 17, 2009 at 1:57 am

I saw that too. What a farce.

Tracy

Alexander S. Peak November 17, 2009 at 7:16 am

This can only happen in a universe insane enough to give a war-monger the Nobel Peace Prize.

This can only happen in a universe insane enough to allow a massive, centralised bank cartel with virtually no limit to its power, all in order to check the power of banks.

This can only happen in a universe insane enough to allow the existence of massive, highly aggressive criminal gangs (States) with absolute monopolies over territories in order to mitigate the influence and possible rise of monopolies.

Of all the possible universes we could imagine, why does ours have to be so insane?

Bush was always a friend of massive government interventionism, at home and abroad. Instead of trying to privatise (in the accurate, libertarian sense of the term) Social Security, he opted to try instead to socialise the stock market. He started the “recovery” plans that Obama has merely continued. And he obviously never even considered getting government off the backs of homosexuals or innocent drug users/dealers. Bush was, properly labelled, an authoritarian. There is no area of human existence where Bush did not seem to see the State as the solution to our problems. Let us in the anti-Establishment never forget this.

Alex

Ned Netterville November 17, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Bush’s policies and presidency were so bad that is fair to say that he was responsible for the election of a socialist with a sufficient mandate to enact socialist legislation, when if fact Obama’s was only elected to get rid of George Bush and Bush’s socialist policies.

Nick E November 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm

A part of me often wondered (half-jokingly) whether Bush was some sort of Manchurian candidate whose goal was to destroy the Republican party from within.

Of course, I often wonder the same thing about Obama.

george November 17, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Or Greenspan?

In Greenspans book, The Age of Turbulence, there’s a passage on page 297 where Greenspan describes his debate with Li Peng and Greenspan told Li Peng that the US tried price controls (under Nixon) but learned that they don’t work and learned not to do them.

This conversation was during the period when Greenspan was head of the Fed and controlling US interest rates….

I find it hard to believe that Greenspan didn’t realize the disconnect in this.

Craig November 17, 2009 at 7:17 pm

I guess it’s just me, but I’d give anything to have GW back in the White House about now. And don’t get all over me for that. After all, popularizing Austrian theory is bound to bring in all sorts of undesirables.

Eric H November 17, 2009 at 8:16 pm

Would you rather he preached the opposite? Give him a break; he’s out of government now.

And it’s no revelation he’s a “statist”–he volunteered to be “our” head of state, and was so for eight years.

Worrying about what he says now is obsessing over a sunk cost. Let it go and aim forward.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: