Reading about Robertson was very confusing for me. I personally am not interested in economics, so a lot of his talk about the stock market and whatever else went in one ear and out the other, so to speak. Actually, since I read it, it would be in one eye and out the other. From what I understand, Robertson was one of the people who foresaw the Great Depression. From what it I understand of what I read, what Robertson did was basically what everyone else did, except that he did it in May of 1929 and everyone else did it in October. Such a small difference, and yet the depression left him rich and many other people poor.
The other thing I can't understand about him is how he could turn down loaning money to so many close friends. It has to take a heart made of stone to turn them down and later learn that they committed suicide as a result. I realize that there's a limit to how much he can give people and still keep some for himself, but to turn down even your closest friends just seems heartless.
With Heline, I once again didn't understand what he was talking about in terms of economics. Why wouldn't you feed 45c corn to a $3 pig? Why is that bad? Perhaps it makes sense from a certain perspective, but it seems stupid to think you can't feed corn to a pig, regardless of what their prices are. It's like people who value the economy and money over everything else live in a different world with entirely different rules. I think that Heline realizes this to some extent, as exemplified by his conversation with another farmer about the war: "This neighbor one day told me what we needed was a damn good war, and we'd solve our agricultural problems. And I said, "Yes, but I'd hate to pay with the price of my son." Which we did. [He weeps.]" From a purely monetary standpoint, a war creates jobs and technological innovations, but there's the human element that you don't want people who had their lives in front of them to have them suddenly taken away. I think that it's this human element which Robertson is missing which makes him feel that he has no responsibility to help those that are close to him.
I also want to respond to what he says about the Federal Governments involvement. He specifically says that people should be more willing to accept help from it because "Individuals have too many different interests." I think that this is exactly why the government should be less involved in the lives of Americans, obviously exempting times of emergency such as the Great Depression. When there isn't an urgent threat which requires immediate and forceful action, I believe that it's important to hear all of those different interests and try to represent all of them in the government's decisions. To have faith that the government will always do what is best for people is to have a mistaken faith. As soon as a new president is elected, things can change and perhaps the government will begin to act in its own interests rather than the peoples', which goes directly against the American values of freedom and democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment