Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (3602)	1/27/2001 7:36:37 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't think Bush has a laissez-faire ideology. We don't have enough information to judge that yet. Wait a while, we'll see. Do you really believe the policy of George Sr. stamping out Iraq was not intervening in the free market world of oil? Not really relevant, since we're not talking about George Sr. But since you brought it up, a couple of points. First, "stamping out Iraq" was never US policy, although many RWE types think (foolishly, IMO) that it should have been, or at least that we should have stamped out Saddam Hussein. Policy was to remove Iraq from Kuwait and from any position from which he could threaten the Saudi oil fields. This could be interpreted as interference with the market price of oil, but Iraq's move into Kuwait could be interpreted the same way. Political interference in markets is generally opposed by status quo powers; The US reacted, rather than acted, to return the market to the status quo ante. Laissez-faire is an economic philosophy, not a political one; I don't think that acting to defend strategically necessary territory from physical aggression contradicts a laissez-faire policy in any way. As far as perceptions go getting Greenspan on side was a smart move. Agreed. Also a pretty obvious move.