Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!rdz
From: rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: 1933 and Roosevelt, discussion wanted?
Message-ID: <735@ccice5.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 13:39:06 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice5.735
Posted: Mon Mar 18 13:39:06 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 06:35:32 EST
References: <705@ccice5.UUCP> <1145@ukma.UUCP>, <719@ccice5.UUCP> <1305@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 23

> 
> I prefer fewer taxes and less spending.  Government spending is invariably
> inefficient and generally a misallocation of resources.  Roosevelt didn't
> "solve" anything, except perhaps to delay recovery for a good decade or so.
> 
> Paul Hightower

I will agree with your first sentence if I can change "less" to "more
meaningful".  I won't touch the second one because I'm afraid I'll fall
into a battle with Libertarians.  We don't know if the third sentence is
true, economically.  There are all the "what-ifs" (replacement of economic
system, political system, involvement in WWII, etc.).  But I will argue
that the social costs were deffinately reduced by his action.  And I think
it was this action that certainly prevented the "what-ifs" from happening.
Now, if you think he did not have a duty to address the social costs, we
had better:
a) end the disscussion
b) move it to net.flame (we may become occasionally irrational!)
c) follow-up by mail

Thanks for showing an interest!

	*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***