| |||||||||||||
Where's the action?Where's the action?Posted Jul 16, 2009 22:31 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Where's the action? by leoc Parent article: Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)
> FWIW, nationalization started under Bush II.
Nationalization started massively under Roosevelt in the 1930's.
Luckily back then the Congress and Supreme Court used a little thing called 'The US Constitution' to shut down most of the more outrageous grabs at power. But nowadays they don't let that sort of thing stop them.
Remember that it's the Congress that is responsible for raising taxes, writing/signing bills, and all that happy stuff. Obama or Bush have actually very little to say about the matter other then just getting public opinion to put pressure on Congress. The USA president is more of a easy scapegoat (or figurehead, depending on current public mood) then any effective force. They have virtually no power to affect the economy or write bills or do anything of that nature on their own. The President office is suppose to be more concerned about things like the military or international matters then anything else.
(Log in to post comments)
Where's the action? Posted Jul 16, 2009 23:05 UTC (Thu) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
Nationalization started under Teddy Roosevelt with the progressivist movement and the trust busting.
FDR had a very compliant congress, who backed everything he did until the "Conservative Coalition" of Republicans and racist southern Democrats began to form in 1938.
The supreme court at the time was majority conservative (like now) with a general 5-4 conservative split, until the switch in time, when it reversed its overall ideology. Prior to the switch it did overturn a rash of new-deal reforms in the mid-1930s.
FDR was operating in an environment in which the prevailing socio-economic order had led to a dramatic collapse of the economy. He had a mandate to rework the entire system and he did. He was one of the most transformative presidents in history. So it's pretty hard to swallow that his democratic congress and a conservative-leaning supreme court were the valiant defenders of of the wonderful laissez-faire invisible hand of your wacked-out little libertarian world.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 0:39 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> FDR was operating in an environment in which the prevailing socio-economic order had led to a dramatic collapse of the economy. He had a mandate to rework the entire system and he did. He was one of the most transformative presidents in history. So it's pretty hard to swallow that his democratic congress and a conservative-leaning supreme court were the valiant defenders of of the wonderful laissez-faire invisible hand of your wacked-out little libertarian world.
Uhuh. And I am sure that his economic policies and political actions did nothing to extend and deepen the depression either and if he did nothing then I am sure that the depression would of lasted for ever and ever and ever and everybody would of starved to death and the whole world would of turned into a gigantic dust bowl, right?
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 0:47 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
Your comment is pure troll. Why did you post?
Where's the action? Posted Jul 17, 2009 1:29 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I forgot that responding to a insulting troll sounds very trollish itself.
Where's the action? Posted Jul 19, 2009 2:36 UTC (Sun) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
umm ... I would also suggest that that previous comment may not have been the best you ever wrote (and you do write good comments, very often, I know). At the very least, most history books (and I read some _before_ the present crisis) suggests that _no action_ was exactly what deepened the great depression to what it was. (And it may be worth pondering that very carefully - the present crisis was handled differently _exactly_ because of the lessons from 1929-1933.)
But, I forgot what all this has to do with the original discussion.
Patent action Posted Jul 19, 2009 20:43 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] There is an excellent explanation of this inactivity in the wikipedia. Just wanted to point out that it was the Federal Reserve which didn't act, but it did so following government policy (as explained in the main article).Just to come back to the present topic, I am not sure if the current US administration would see restrictions on the current patent model as pro-business (and therefore helping businesses to navigate the crisis) or against (making companies lose one source of income). Maybe they need some additional help from their constituencies to see that patents are harmful to the software industry as a whole. I know that the Spanish government doesn't have a flying clue about the patent issue, and for once have more faith on European authorities to do the right thing here and continue disallowing software patents.
|
|||||||||||||