Chris Zell wrote:
History as regards Hoover is much distorted. He attempted all sorts of interventions in the economy, little different from the present.
The difference is that his interventions failed, whereas those of FDR worked well enough to prevent catastrophe and rescue the banks, and those of Obama appear to be working.
I see no problem with engineers running things and leaving the Community Organizers to offer the spin, hype and diplomacy needed for political cover.
That would be a gigantic game of musical chairs, with everyone ending up in the wrong place. It would be like putting the New York Mets baseball team in charge of the Metropolitan Opera, and reassigning the metropolitan musicians to run the grocery stores. Believe me, you don't want people trying to jobs they have no relevant skills or knowledge for. Engineers and scientists know a lot about their fields and their jobs but they know nothing about running a nation. If you think they do, you must be an engineer. Engineers tend to believe that all problems have a technical solution.
We have had two Presidents who haven't run anything of note successfully ( aside from campaigns) - from both parties.
Running a campaign is the essence of politics, which is the essence of governance. This like saying that an engineer is unqualified because all he did was singlehandedly design a successful Space Shuttle replacement. Obama ran the most effective campaign in modern history, which proves he is a superb politician, which makes him (technically) qualified. Whether he is the right man for the job or not depends on your view of what should be done. If you are a Democrat, and in the majority, you will think he is. Right or wrong, the majority decides these things.
As for China, I conclude that Lee Kwan Yew has a point in saying that you can only have as much human rights as your developed economy can support.
I have often heard this. It makes no sense to me at all. In 1776 the U.S. economy was far weaker and smaller than any third world nation's is today. The U.S. was a colony with no industry and few schools or universities.
Obviously, any nation today has far more technology and "development" (roads, cell phones, computers, factories and the like) than any democratic nation did in 1850. For that matter, ancient Greek people ran a democracy, albeit one that required slave labor.
I do not see any need for "development" before you can have democracy. On the other hand, non-democratic societies seldom contribute much to science, technology or the wellsprings of development. They can borrow, but they cannot innovate. India is contributing to technical progress. China, despite its millions of engineers, is only finding ways to make incremental improvements to existing technology. Most of their automobiles and high tech designs are reportedly purloined from Japanese models. That's what the Japanese press says.
- Jed
