From: E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Y'all stop bein' mean to Jimmuh Cahtuh
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:32:58 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

A couple of folks said some things about Jimmy Carter which I figure
that I will take issue with:

Martin says:

> The revolution in
>Iran was a problem which could hardly have been taken care of without
>going to war with Iran -- and at that time, this would have resulted in
>a MAJOR cold war confrontation.

While this is, of course, pure unadulterated speculation; I have always
wondered what would have happened if Carter had "come clean" on behalf
of the US and admitted that the Shah was a puppet of the US, placed and
kept in power for the purpose of "fighting communism" and enriching the
oil industry.

>  Carter's political character flaw is A) He blamed the American people
>for the energy crisis and asked them to be more responsible (The Malaise
>Business)  -- to say something is the fault of America is not a popular
>thing.  (Damn -- I'm late to class -- I'll write more later...

Carter was screwed by Nixon on this one; in 1971 Nixon "floated" the dollar
on the international market. Previously the dollar (since the Bretton Woods
agreement in 1946) had been the standard of the international currency
marketplace and was pegged at $35/oz. of gold. Nixon's removal of the
dollar as the standard and refusal to continue to trade gold at $35 an
ounce caused the dollar to devalue.

The OPEC price hikes were largely attributable to the devaluation of the
dollar; Carter was between a rock and a hard place.

(BTW - don't take this to mean that I support the gold standard)

Carter's failure here was not in asking Americans to sacrifice; it was
in failing to wave the flag simultaneously.

<actually you are pretty wrong carl... the economy
<was due for a break down cause we hadn't really had one since world
<warII. We had been in a continous state of warfare since WWII\
<and korea and vietnam were both attempts to keep the economy
<going. Bush is suffering from the same problem... an incredible
<economic fall because of cuts in the massive military budget
<among other things and a general lack of faith in the economy when we
<don't have a perceived threat!

This "war is good for the economy" thing has really gone quite far
enough. The "war thing" is really kind of a crude statement that some sector
of the economy needs to consume goods at a rapid pace in order to promote
growth, new jobs and general economic robustness.

Prior to WWII (during the great depression) there was plenty of capital
available, it was just mostly in the hands of people whose spending habits
do not "drive" an economy. A few reasonably bright (non traditional)
economists figured out that they could get the economy going again by
means of massive government expenditures in the domestic economy and by
encouraging the easing of credit terms to the middle class by lenders.

WWII came about at a good time for the sake of economic growth, allowing
the government to justify enormous expenditures which stimulated the
economy and distributed money into the hands of consumers.

The problem now, after decades of massive government spending, is that
the rich once again have acquired roughly the same proportion of the
wealth and income that they held prior to the great depression, the
government and the middle class are not in a position to take out more
loans and the rich are still lousy consumers.

>-Martin
<                           John Stith

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU