i think much of the hope and optimism and cooperation stemmed from a sincere belief that everyone was willing to do their part to put the country back on their feet..
Exactly. More of a "kinder and gentler" era, opposite of what is claimed for our current era. It seems a much more accurate way to understand gov't is to assume whatever is said is exactly the reverse of the truth.
who at the time had any idea that the wealth transfer system would balloon to current levels....
Even with the New Deal it's interesting to note the vast difference between initial programs, and the incremental ratcheting over the years. It's the ratcheting that's caused the destruction, imo, because the relentless incremental influence on legislation has all been by lobbyists and self-interested politicians building their empires, not any real citizen representation.
No one wants to compare those days with this, because it's in the self-interest of everyone in gov't to keep the gov't in a central all-powerful position. If not, they lose power and jobs. That's why you'll never see such comparisons in the media.
It's in the interests of business also, because they have the majority of influence in gov't and can get their exclusions into legislation. It only hurts the majority of the citizens who get less back in support than they pay in taxes due to huge gov't intermediation.
Eventually it'll become publicly clear how such elitist gov't/business policies increase militarism and destroy national security, along with creating a feudal society of low mobility and disinformation.
Today's debate on drug costs is an interesting example -- now the drug cos use a figure to justify their profits of "$800 million to get a new drug on the market", which is laughable. Taxol, for example, was produced by NIH by taxpayer funds, and the drug co. got it for free, spending more money on protecting their patents and marketing than any sort of research. And yet, due to overwhelming control of the political process by the drug lobbyists, the debate doesn't even consider that -- the debate is between whether to pay extortnionate costs at the fed or state levels, etc.
I got a view into that consulting w. my brother who worked for Roche, and got $5,000 1st class tix to Berne, even when he asked for coach... He's an unusual executive, a practicing Buddhist who would rather ride his bike, instead got a limousine picking him up at a 4-star hotel, etc. He said everything is like that in the clinical trials also, it's almost like the more they can multiply cost categories, the more they can justify monopolitistic pricing at the retail level, and issue lies like the "IT COSTS $800 MILLION TO GET A DRUG OUT!" nonsense.
You're right about tax levels, imo -- housing programs (back on topic!) will soon be heavily affected as gov't at all levels go into a panic to support high levels of spending/subsidy merry-go-round. |
