home → articles → Columnists | Email to a Friend

Just Your Standard Bull

published: November 28th 2008
by: Michael Sturgess

As we near the close of 2008 and approach the new era of change that our new president has promised us, I am left wondering whether anyone truly knows what our future holds and who truly is responsible for shaping that future. We have heard the rhetoric for months now, statements like we cannot endure four more years of Bush economics and that real change is needed so that we can ensure a brighter future for not only us but for our children. We’ve all heard it—and we’ve all used it. Both sides of the aisle!
    However, I have a few questions I would like for you to ponder prior to the next election. I know it will be some time, but look at it as a post sale meeting where everyone gets together soon after an event is over to go over what went right, what went wrong, and what do we change the next time. If you wait until next year to have the meeting, you tend to forget many of the items to discuss like did you have enough folding chairs or how many meals did we have left over. See what I mean? So, let’s go over a few questions while the election is fresh on our minds, shall we?
    First question. Just exactly how much responsibility does the current administration have for the current economic crisis?
    Second Question. How much responsibility do you want any administration to shoulder for our economy.
    Comments on the first question. I have received dozens of emails over the past few months about this very question. Let’s take all the failed mortgages—some would have you believe that this is Bush’s fault because it happened on his watch. Others would have you believe that the fault lies back with the former Clinton administration and that changes that were imposed then are rearing their ugly heads now.
    And how about the all the failed financial institutions? Some would have you believe that the fault lies with all the greedy CEO’s and huge piles of money they have drained from their companies’ coffers. Others still would have you believe that this is also Bush’s fault due to a lack of regulatory oversight. They would have you believe that with the proper government watchdogs, these sorts of things can’t happen, right?
    Comments on the second question. I don’t know about you, but I really do think that we all would live in a better world where any current administration has little or nothing to do with our economy. Where a true democracy and free trade exists, the less meddling from politicians that we have in the market place, the better it will be for all concerned. Do you really want any president directly responsible for the economy—Bush or Obama? Are we not better off when we allow the market place to correct itself? Wouldn’t we live in a better place where only supply and demand controlled our price levels?
    I ask you that are old enough to recall the Carter administration of 1980. By imposing a grain embargo on the Soviet Union on corn, he negatively affected US prices while having little or no impact on foreign policy. Better still, can you recall the events of earlier this year that lead to the border between the US and Mexico opening for sales of US seedstock to Mexican producers? These markets had been closed since 2003 due to a BSE case in that year. They stayed closed because of politics—not because of science. They finally opened this year because of politics—certainly not because of science.
    If you ask me, the only regulations we need to see is regulations that strictly prohibit the interference of governments in our place or places of business. Of course, we can’t be so naive as to believe this type of utopian environment would ever exist. Yes, politics will play a role in our economy and yes, politicians will affect the market place whether we like it or not.
    Here, however, is a perfect case where less is better--not more. I cannot think of one rational, sound argument in this case where one could argue that we would all benefit from more meddling by government and our politicians. If you are one of those who I have failed to convince and lean towards more interference, consider this.
    When you set down with friends and family this holiday season and feast upon a wonderfully prepared holiday meal, make sure you ask yourself this important question—is more better? Sure, the pecan pie is fabulous, along with all the Turkey and trimmings. Surely it couldn’t hurt to have just one more slice or another helping, right?
    Sometimes, our senses tell us one thing when our mind is saying something very different. So, I am prepared to make a deal with you. I promise to push away from the table this holiday season after just a modest helping of holiday fare if you will agree to vote for less government meddling in our next election season. Do we have a deal?
SLS