On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:13:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

(snips)


If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.

Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my
case that the corporations did lose their power.
"Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had.

Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a
period of "laissez-faire" capitalism.

No, of course not. I was using his term. I took it to mean
something along the lines of, "those who favor laissez faire
capitalism," i.e., industrial capitalists. They did fail.
Their stock market failed to preserve the capital invested
in it during the late 20s. Then they failed to stop the New
Deal's security state from displacing them at the top of
political power. People had lost faith in industrial
capitalism as the basis for their economic well being. They
turned instead to the New Deal.

That's a myth
perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school
"history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the
depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the
market. The depression occurred because the Federal
Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean
they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut
the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%,
leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation.
Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in
economics for showing this.

The reduction of the money supply (made necessary by the
previous inflation caused by fractional reserve banking)
could have been accommodated in the economy if costs had
been allowed to decline. But instead the FDR administration
put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS
taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital
market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing
inflexible wage rates, etc. They made the depression worse
and much longer than it needed to be. We did need a market
correction to wash out the inflation and bubble market
speculation which occurred during the 20s. We did not need
the Great Depression.

FDR didn't save us from the depression. He made it worse.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.