So Harry, Are you saying that the money is hiding out in land at the moment?
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:56 PM Subject: Re: A noble defence indeed! Re: [Futurework] Glimpses of Bush > Keith, > > I don't think that Bush is a fine President at all. > > He is no better, or worse, than the rest of them. They are human beings, as > subject to frailty as the rest of us. The only training they get is "on the > job". > > You well know of the errors that Bush made at the beginning of his > Presidency - simple errors that nevertheless brought scorn down on his head > from his political enemies. (Not opponents, but enemies, for he had > snatched the shining and profitable crown of the Presidency from their > hands. His lot were equally thrilled by all this stature, power, and > treasure, dropping into their bailiwick.) > > Presidential politics is the politics of money. In fact, all politics in > the US is concerned principally about money. This is not to say that > Presidential candidates don't have philosophical convictions. They do. > Perhaps Bush more than many. > > But the real world of the Presidency probably shows them quickly that they > can do little to bring their philosophy to life - though Bush is trying. > > A remarkable thing about Bush's election was that there was no attempt to > hide who he really is. He came to the hustings as a rock-ribbed > conservative - considered death in politics. One tries to be centrist and > indeed, elected Presidents can be expected to move towards the center. > > When Bush assumed office, people complained about his conservative stance. > You may recall the Economist editorial that laughed at this, saying that > Bush was elected as a conservative - how else should he behave but as he > is. I would expect that Bush if he survives into a second term to move > toward the center - but that's a war away. > > What bothers me about general reaction to Bush - and what impels me > to "tell it like it is" is the general analysis of Bush based on > interpretations of events, that may or may not be true. > > Everyone psychoanalyzes Bush. Someone suggests, someone else picks up the > suggestion. After a jump or two, it becomes fact. The fact is then heated > up, passed around, embroidered, and becomes startling and front page material. > > Where again, it is endlessly pawed over and interpreted. > > I like to stay with what I can see. At the Press Conference, I saw > confidence. I asked whether you saw the symbolism of Bush being alone. I > can't remember a Presidential Press Conference in which the President > wasn't flanked by flunkies. Their job was to get the POTUS out of trouble > if necessary - ending the event abruptly on occasion. Do any FW's recall a > "man alone" Press Conference with a previous President? > > Then, he had a list of reporters to call on. So, he called on ABC. With > previous PC's the reporters would all yell, clamoring for attention. Then, > the President would call on ABC. That's the difference. > > Bush seemed in control of the proceedings. He didn't appear to say anything > he hadn't said before. He stayed for close to an hour. Seemed to me that > was much longer than most PPC's. > > The guy was very confident - perhaps born of sociopathic tendencies - but > I have no reason to assume that, though others jump to such thoughts. > > He was in control of the proceedings - which is where a leader is supposed > to be. I saw no sign that drug or alcohol addiction was a concern. In fact, > between the interminable speeches - Oops! I mean answers - Bush smiled and > joked a little. > > I try to see it like it is. I see no understanding of the economic > situation by the Bush Administration. Lowering the interest rate is just > plain soppy - but part of the manipulation of the economy that has taken > the place of what passes for free market adjustments. > > Reducing taxes as an economic measure is equally soppy. However, giving > large tax reductions to rich people with the intention of stimulating the > economy makes more sense than giving smaller reductions to lots of poorer > people. Poorer people will probably use it to pay off some of their credit > card debt. Rich people will invest their reduction - probably in China. > > Bush doesn't know what to do about the economy - even though I am sure he > is pelted with advice by people who also don't know what to do. > > Similarly, the Democrats don't know what to do about the economy. Both > sides have been brought up with such basic information as 'two consecutive > downward quarters mean recession'. This kind of thing makes them believe > they have a grasp of the situation - even though they haven't a clue as to > why there might be two consecutive downward quarters. > > Both Democrats and Republicans can 'view with alarm' - which they do. > > But, neither of them know what's wrong - as I've intimated in previous > posts. The only thing we can be sure of is that when the economy goes up > both parties will claim credit. > > It looks to me now that the only direction to go in the near future is > faster inflation of the money supply and an increase in interest rates. The > trouble is that this will make the dollar externally weak. We are likely to > need such a policy to save a catastrophic depression that will likely be > started by the collapse of high land prices that have made buying real > estate so attractive. > > But, who would dare to take the political risk of raising interest rates > and inflating? > > I think I will save for a separate post the real problem - energy. We have > the same two choices we had 30 years ago - coal and nuclear power. No other > power sources are viable. > > Harry > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Keith wrote: > > >Hi Harry, > > > >Well! Yours (14:38 09/03/03 -0800) was a noble defence of Bush! I can't > >possibly answer it. Your and my view of Bush are so different that we will > >just have to wait upon events to see who is right. > > > >Generally speaking, you regard Bush as a fine President. I regard him as a > >travesty. In my view, he's almost as ridiculous as, say Kim Il Jong of > >North Korea, who chooses dishes from 30 different meals set before him > >every day and fires missiles off into the sea as a hobby, and the President > >of Kirghizstan (is it?) -- the chap who has re-named the days of the week > >after himself and those of his wife. > > > >Bush is not crazy, of course, as the two above. But he's not Presidential > >calibre either and, in the way, he is being influenced by a very dubious > >group behind him (with, probably, other private agendas), I regard him as a > >dangerous man (even though, paradoxically, I am more inclined to Republican > >economic ideas than to Democratic ones). But we must hope that he is more > >of a danger to himself than to others. > > > >Keith > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
