1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8462/more-awful-truths-about-republicans/

More Awful Truths About Republicans

September 4, 2008 by

Four years ago we observed that the so-called “Republican philosophy” of small government, sound money, and balanced budgets was illusory in terms of the history and then-current policies of the Republican Party. However, even we would never have guessed how awful the Republican Party economic policy would become. From mere mercantilism, the Republican Party is now flirting with comprehensive socialist economic policy and another Great Depression. FULL ARTICLE


Brad September 4, 2008 at 9:38 am

I’m going to risk sounding ignorant, but, yes, the Republicans are responsible for all that was elaborated in the article, but are they exclusively responsible IN TOTAL? It seems that much of the Republican slight of hand is the method to pay for the State and all its functions and somehow not tax. But it still stands that fiat money and all the monetary control is to benefit the State in its endless desire to control and the Democrats are just as responsible (if not more so, even now). The Democrats solution will be to control and regulate even more AND raise taxes which will contract the economy. The Republican’s method of finance was to not tax, borrow, and amp up monetary policies and dramatically overheat the economy. Neither method is good in the long term, but the root of it all is State control. And when the Republicans determined they couldn’t beat’em they joined’em. There is no question that Republicans have helped damage our economic health, but the sickness was caught 75 years ago. We at just simply coming to the end game of bloated entitlements and smoke and mirror financing methods. Republicans dare not strike at entitlements if they want to get elected and the Democrats dare not tax if they want to get elected. And so both have played their hands, and the electorate (those who bother to vote) vote for entitlements of some kind without having to be taxed. And so we go to war and we play with rubber money. But it wasn’t Republicans who drove the State to be the insurer of last resort. But the party did split by those who decided they might as well get a seat at the table and those who left and chose a new banner.

Inquisitor September 4, 2008 at 10:33 am

Couple of errors I noticed:
-use of the word “mitigated” seems inappropriate in the sentence it was used. I think “aggravated” is more pertinent.
-Shouldn’t it be Sachs, not Saks?

Inquisitor September 4, 2008 at 10:39 am

Good points Brad – to an extent competition in the political arena will involve the promising of ever greater supplies of “goodies” to politically powerful minorities (including the so-called “poor”). Of course, given the Republicans’ predominant focus on order and stability, rather than liberty, I do not think a lot of what is happening is antithetical to their goals. They have always been dazzled by elite classes, ones that are empowered via the mechanism of the state.

Matt September 4, 2008 at 1:25 pm

The game of Legalized theft is perpetrated by both parties. The devaluing of money by the Federal Reserve’s endless monetizing of debt and Banks’ ill-gotten wealth by Fractional Reserve Banking leads to ever more of the same. Like an addict more of the same is needed to exist, that of course leads to a crack-up somewhere down the road. Can it be averted again as it has been so often in the past? Stay tuned!

Brian Gladish September 4, 2008 at 2:35 pm

To criticize the Fed for bad policy is like criticizing the Sun for shining. As Austrians we know that the Fed cannot know the “correct” interest rate and, therefore, cannot set it. My fear is that the final collapse will come under the stewardship of a “free market” (haha!) administration, and that we will be plunged into era of planning that makes the New Deal look laissez-faire.

Carlos September 4, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Who are those ten Republicans who did not go to the convention?

David Hillary September 4, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Wow, its one kinda regulation being advocated as a consequence of another kinda regulation being in place. When anyone has this sort of argument, it’s normally a bad sign.

The socialisation of housing mortgage and banking risk is particularly bad in the USA, and in many other countries with fiat currency and central banks, they seem to get by with a comparatively free market for banking services and mortgage lending, and without bail outs of either.

Here in New Zealand we have unregulated to light-handed regulation of banking and also for mortgage lending, and no deposit insurance (explicit or implicit), and socialisation of mortgage risk. Although more than 24 unregulated deposit taking financial institution have failed in the last year, none have been bailed out or financially supported by the government, with depositor losses of up to 90% in some cases. The government response has been limited to a few prosecutions for false information in prospectuses, and some increase in disclosure and other requirements for issue of securities for subscription by the public in the form of deposits.

cipher September 4, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Rothbard does us all a great service by helping us understand our current situation via his chronicle of recent history here.

Stephen Dow September 5, 2008 at 12:27 am

I think the word “calculated” in “Economist Don A. Rich has calculated …” was intended to link to the article by Rich (http://mises.org/daily/3062) rather than to the previous “Awful truth” article. Also in the sentence preceding that one, where it says “the bill that taxpayers would have to eat is laughably small,” I think the authors meant to say something like “the bill that taxpayers would have to eat is many times larger than the laughably small CBO estimate.”

Paul Marks September 5, 2008 at 8:01 am

The first modern Republican (i.e. the antislavery party founded in the 1850′s partly from anti slavery Democrats – but mostly from the Whigs), to run on a platform of reducing taxes and government spending was Warren Harding in 1920.

And President Harding actually did so – which may be the real reason he is hated by the establishment historians, as the “corruption” of his Administration was certainly no worse than most Administrations.

Calvin Coolidge was also a low tax, low government spending President. The Democrats having rejected the small government tradition way back at the Convention of 1896.

As for President George Walker Bush – he has been terrible on government spending. It is impossible to defend this wild spending nonentity.

John McCain has a much better record on government spending (although that is hardly difficult), but admits that he does not understand economics – and the establishment (presenting themselves as people who do understand economics) will, no doubt, give him very bad advice.

Barack Obama is from a Marxist background (although trained from childhood to avoid calling himself a Marxist or even a socialist) and, therefore, has massive support from the media and from the academia that produces the media. Dissenting media will be dealt with, in various ways, should he win.

The general situation is not good for the United States – or for the West in general.

fundamentalist September 5, 2008 at 9:43 am

Paul: “Barack Obama is from a Marxist background…”

That’s true, and why I think we should vote for him. His economics are clear. As a result, I think people will give Republicans control of Congress and give us a deadlocked government. McCain talks like a classical liberal in order to win votes, but once in office he will be more socialistic than Bush was and will give the Democrats everything they want. But the American people will be fooled into thinking his is a Republican conservative and will leave the Democrats in control of Congress. So the Democrats will effectively control both Congress and the White House.

Mark Thornton September 5, 2008 at 10:20 am

Bob and I have a paper on the 1920′s tax cuts.

“Schumpeterian Analysis, Supply Side Economics, and Macroeconomic Policy in the 1920s,” Review of Social Economy, Vol. XLIV No.3 (December, 1986) pp. 221-237

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: