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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (36688)	9/2/2009 5:36:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Some think Hoover operated under a laissez-faire policy, since decades before he became president he had talked positively about such an idea, and since he intervened less than FDR (as did every other president, FDR takes the prize, LBJ, Hoover, and perhaps surprisingly Nixon are honorable mentions but its not a photo finish, with Obama its still to early to tell except for that he definitely won't be anywhere near the bottom of the list, probably another honorable (or should that be dishonorable?) mention). But he had changed his mind about laissez-faire long before the election, and arguing that "less interventionist than FDR" means your a supporter of unrestricted free markets is like arguing that less aggressively nationalistic than the Japanese regime in the 30s and 40s, means your like Gandhi. A side point. People on the left often like to talk about Bush as a supporter of radical, unregulated free market capitalism, or words to that effect, but while he IMO he wasn't close to the presidents I mention in the first paragraph, he was, at least after starting TARP and other initiatives began near the end of his presidency, more interventionist than the typical modern president. Obviously more so than Reagan, but also more than Carter (who started moving in the direction of deregulation before Reagan), Carter unquestionably had his faults as a president, but being excessively statist/interventionist wasn't one of them at least if your considering the change in the level of intervention, rather than the absolute level left, and if your comparing him to other real world presidents, not to the ideal. Also I am not considering his "bully pulpit" statements, only actual regulations or laws. If everything he asked people to do, counted as if he forced them to do it, then he would be far more interventionist.