The EU president says that our current economic plans are a “road to Hell.”
He slammed the U.S.’ widening budget deficit and protectionist trade measures — such as the “Buy America” policies included in the stimulus bill, although Obama has said he opposes protectionism in principle.
Topolanek said that “all of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the road to hell.”
“We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way,” he said.
I guess we’re only supposed to emulate them when they promote socialism. Anyway, history is apparently not the strong suit of those running either the White House or Congress.
although Obama has said he opposes protectionism in principle.
Never listen to what Obama’s teleprompter says, listen to what he does.
“Anyway, history is apparently not the strong suit of those running either the White House or Congress.”
I’m still trying to figure out what the “strong suit” of anybody in Washington is, but the nearest I can find is turning good food into crap.
That quote was from Topolanek, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. People are confusing him with Vaclav Klaus, the President of the CR. Klaus is currently also President of the EU, since that post is held by the head of state of member nations on six-month rotations in alphabetical order. It’s easy to see why people are confused since Klaus has also been highly critical of all sorts of politically correct nonsense.
My favorite Klaus quote came right after the Soviet empire ended; some visiting European leftists had expressed their disappointment that the Czechs were implementing constitutional democracy and a market economy. They had hoped that the Eastern Europeans would experiment with a “Third Way” between capitalism and communism. He told them “That’s a great idea. Why don’t you experiment with it at home? If it works we’ll consider it.”
Which reminds me of one of the great Soviet jokes: “If socialism is so scientific, why didn’t they try it out on rats first?”
Of course he opposes it “in principle”.
Much the same as I’m opposed to excessive drinking or spending ridiculous amounts of money on liquor that has aged longer than I have, in principle. But I still indulge in them once in a while, in practice.
Unfortunately, most of the things that Obama seems to claim to oppose in principle seem to be indulged in a LOT more regularly in practice than my once-a-decade practices.
Of course, one could also say that my once-a-decade practices don’t have as far-reaching effects as Obama’s once-a-decade practices. Chances a VERY low that I will trigger a national economic depression with 750 mL of a single-malt scotch. Not zero, but asymptotically close.
The more I hear about Obama’s activities the more I think he’s trying to be both the Herbert Hoover and the FDR of this recession. A notable failure of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley act, which imposed tariffs on a number of imports. This lead in turn to punitive tariffs by the rest of the world and contributed greatly to the economic crisis that saw the Nazis obtain power in Germany.
There’s no question in my mind that if the US puts up any substantial protectionist measures, the rest of the world will respond in kind. If the US is lucky, this will be taken before the WTO (a notably slow organization) before punitive actions are taken. Otherwise, it could be a real mess. I don’t think the EU President’s words are overstated here.
Thanks for the save Mr. Bennet, I couldn’t recall who said it.
Karl – I’d like to say, “Well at least a tariff would put an end to cheap junk we get from foreign manufacturers, thus forcing our own production if we wanted to keep any of it,” but knowing the unions from my time in SE MI, the result of handing them that much of a grip on our economy would probably be worse for everyone.
R Anderson, historically there are cases where tariffs have been used to spur local industry. Paraguay (in the early to mid 19th Century) and Japan are probably the two most notable examples where this has worked (both went from virtually nothing to significant industrial powers for the time in a few decades), though most industrial nations including the US and the big European countries have engaged in it.
My not very educated impression is that these protectionist policies were combined with fierce internal competition. That isn’t likely to be the situation in the US now.
Mainstream media ignored this slam of socialism, but Jay Leno slams Obama in this video with the c-word (communism):
http://tinyurl.com/c4vkpq
> The more I hear about Obama’s activities the more I think he’s trying to be both the Herbert Hoover and the FDR of this recession.
You write that like there’s a significant difference.
Hoover actually started the deficit spending and govt control of production that FDR is now famous for. The standard story that Hoover was “hands off” is completely wrong.
FDR campaigned against Hoover’s deficit spending but once in office, he swung towards Hoover’s actual policies and increased their magnitude, just as Hoover planned.