Proof Positive, Laissez-faire Doesn't Work
In his speech yesterday, George W. Bush has finally faced up to the fact that Laissez-faire does not work. It would seem that its not just the poor who suffer from the present administration's neglect of what is happening. So to be fair, I guess that the only beneficiaries of all the neglect is (SURPRISE!) the petroleum industry. Now who's family comes from that?
Hear the speech here.
My question is, is it enough and why the hell did it take so long to step in? Even Richard Nixon would have been more responsible. Nixon at least instituted a price freeze when things got out of hand.
posted by Charles @ 4:20 PM
Comments: 7 <-<<Add One!
7 Comments:
Can't get the speech video working :(
The Bush is all dried up...just put petrol on IT & set it to fire...
Funny how when it doesn't just affect the "poor" is when it's deemed important enough to want to commit to a change.
--snow
Mona,
As much as I detest the man, I think petrol would be wasted like that. I think a better thing would be for him to see his neglect come home to himself, and for him to develop a conscience.
Snow,
Yes, but things were about to get really bad, if something wasn't done. Heck, they already got really bad, but we saw how things went previously, when Detroit had problems. The death of many steel mills, the towns they supported, and all of the other suppliers for the automotive industry suffered before.
There's a huge multiplier when it comes to auto purchases, that is your money is then spent by others, and then by others still, so when a car is sold it means that not just the price of the car is lost to our economy, but multiples of that amount are lost.
I still have to ask the question, why did it take so long? And why the hell are those republican legislators blocking something that NEEDS to be done?
I'm not sure what the average wage is for an autoworker is, but try losing the income from millions of workers, and see what it does to the economy. It would upset things far worse than during the Great Depression, I'm afraid. Things would cascade, first the suppliers would have huge layoffs, then as retail sales went to sh__, other manufacturers and retailer would have to follow suit, and it wouldn't just be here, it would be *globally*.
Would you think that everyone would just put up with losing everything they have worked their entire lives for, or do you think there might be immense riots? Do you think that there would be enough money to keep entire police forces working, or do you think that many, if not most, would lose their jobs, too? Who then, would prevent crime? Things would get ugly, really ugly, and it would happen fast.
Unlike during the Great Depression, communications are a lot faster now, so businesses would be dropping workers like a RainBird sprinkler, and again unlike then, there are few employers who would keep employees even if they weren't making a profit. I would imagine that even the CEOs and other top dogs of corporations would be losing their jobs, because the shareholders have to get their dividends, 'cause its more important to pay somebody for not working than to pay for somebody to produce product.
Whatever happened to working for a living? Oh, layoffs.
That reminds me, I continue to look for a job....
That is indeed very ironic...to pay someone for not working and not to pay someone who does.
That is so unfair & horrible & so 'cutthroat' . It seems that the CEO's live on 'alms' of the workers, to keep them in style!
Merry Christmas Charles & Sarah!
Things are a big mess, for sure. Anyway, I just wanted to stop by and wish you Happy Holidays.:)
Happy New Year to Charles & Sarah!
Post a Comment
<< Home