Hi Harry, In writing about Bush's "alcoholic history" I wasn't referring to Bush Senior but to George W. I understand from our newspapers that he had drink problems when younger but has foresworn it now. All I'm saying is that the presidency is going to be extremely stressful in the next two years.
Although I'm a free trader I would not be proud of Bush if I were American, nor would I feel in safe hands -- as I feel any citizen ought to be. His simplistic language (use of "evil", "crusade", etc) and the details of his past business life as revealed by Krugman and others suggest to me that Bush is slightly mad and at least slightly bad (ethically). (The only point which moderates against my feeling that Bush may turn out to be mentally unstable or incompetent is that I can't help think that when the history books are written it will be revealed that the true president has actually been Cheney all along.) What's needed in America right now by way of an economic policy far more than fiscal or interest rate changes would be a crusade (yes, I'd accept "crusade" in this context!) against secrecy and obfuscation in the financial services industry. A determination to bring about transparency and justice from now onwards would do more for an American recovery than anything else. Nevertheless, I still don't think that the American economy is going to recover within the next couple of years at least, and it may be a great deal longer if there are exchange rate and consequent protectionist problems as between the Europe, Japan, China and America. Thus I wouldn't bet on Bush being re-elected in 2004. Keith At 12:08 07/12/02 -0800, you wrote: >Keith, > >I suppose the blame must be placed on those English papers. > >Lot's of discussion about O'Neill by the pundits, the experts, the >political apologists from both sides, yet not one of them (as far as I >know) mentioned O'Neil's anti-tax cut stance. And they would have had it >been significant. Mostly the conclusion was that he was weak and that >someone stronger should replace him. > >Read the Economist's write-up of O'Neil "Missed but Unmourned". The >Washington Post" had a somewhat identical headline. But, neither said >anything about any anti-tax cut stance. I suspect that the English papers >spend too much time on what they know than what may be true. O'Neil got on >everybody's nerves. Bush erred in being to loyal to him. > >The American economy is apparently showing signs of life - not much, but >some. The unemployment rate is nasty - 5.2% among whites - more than twice >that among blacks. > >However, nobody knows what to do about the economy. The tax cut suggestion >is weak Keynesianism. During Clinton's watch, he imposed the "largest >peacetime tax increase in history" according to the Republicans. Did that >make the economy die? > >If not, why do we assume the tax cut will make it zoom? > >Because we have nothing else to offer is the answer, whether from >Republicans or Democrats. > >If a fair tax cut was needed, why not subsidize states so they can abolish >their sales taxes? Would a drop of near 10% in prices paid at the markets >help sales? > >I am also interested in Bush's "alcoholic history". Is he supposed to be a >drunk, as well as a dumb idiot barely able to graduate from Yale and >Harvard, and barely able to fly a modern jet fighter? > >However, one thing I know. At the end of his tenure, whether 4 or 8 years, >his hair will be grayer, or whiter. It happens to them all. > >I keep telling Democrats on this list not to underestimate their opponent, >but they seem to want to - perhaps because it's more comforting. But, it's >also the way to lose in 2004. > >They should remember that when Bush was re-elected for a second term in >Texas, He carried more than two thirds of the votes. (In spite of his >"drunken, idiotic, behavior".) > >Harry > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Keith wrote: > >>An interesting conjunction of events is about to take place. >> >>In an hour or two Saddam Hussein is going release thousands of pages of >>information about the war-readiness of Iraq. He's cocking a snoop at both >>theUS and the UN by making sure that a summary in English will be released >>to journalists first in Baghdad. There's little doubt in my mind that the >>report will (truthfully) show that Iraq is of no danger to the rest of the >>world. >> >>In the last 24 hours, Bush has sacked Paul O'Neill because, apparently, he >>has spoken out against the policy of further tax cuts for those with large >>incomes. But the decisions were taken quite a long time ago. Why wasn't >>O'Neill sacked then? What is significant is that Bush hasn't yet chosen a >>successor. Nor has a replacement been chosen to replace Harvey Pitt at the >>head of the SEC. This is curious. >> >>Bush is in a dilemma. On the one hand, it is likely that he knows that he >>will not be able to mount any sort of thorough-going invasion of Iraq >>because: (a) he has almost no support from the rest of the world, and (b) >>Saddam Hussein is as secure as ever and ordinary Iraqis will fight fiercely >>in the streets of the major cities and inflict heavy casualties on American >>soldiers. >> >>On the other hand, Bush also knows that the American economy is still >>showing no signs of being able to pick itself up. But he badly needs this >>to happen by next summer at the latest if he is going to make sure of being >>re-elected in 2004. Until then, unemployment, now at 6%, is almost >>certainly going to mount steadily in all three important areas of >>employment -- service, manufacturing and retail. >> >>O'Neill was nothing more than a cheerleader. He had nothing coherent or >>cogent to say and people soon learned to take little notice of him. In any >>case, the position of the Treasury Secretary was not an important one. The >>man with the real power, Greenspan, could have been speaking out in the >>past few months but has said nothing. But what can he say? Or do? Lower >>interest rates would make no difference to the present investment impasse. >> >>Bush badly need growth and he badly needs someone with stature to supply >>him with an economic policy. >> >>But he's not going to get either. >> >>Neither he, nor anybody else, will be able to shorten the long period of >>purging, reform, and recovery of confidence (by both corporate and private >>investors) that's now required by the American economy after the biggest >>stock market bubble (indeed, it was a double bubble) in its history. >> >>In short, because his second term is now at stake and the economy is not >>going to respond whatever he does, Bush is going to be under far more >>stress than he's been so far, despite 9/11. Considering his alcoholic >>history, I would not lay a great deal of confidence in his mental health in >>the coming two years. >> >>Keith Hudson > > >****************************** >Harry Pollard >Henry George School of LA >Box 655 >Tujunga CA 91042 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Tel: (818) 352-4141 >Fax: (818) 353-2242 >******************************* > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
