In Loco Parenthesis

   The president now says the Federal Reserve Board is "loco," and "out of control." Moreover, he adds, "I know more than they do."
   News flash: The White House does not control the Federal Reserve, whose responsibility is to monitor the economy and try to prevent extreme swings that would endanger the national welfare.
   But this president seems to want totally free business and financial markets, with no government influence or interference of any kind. Ever.
  
   Been there, done that, and the result was chaos, rampant in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, with economic crashes that spread poverty and distress not only around the country but around the world.
   It was not until 1917 that the Federal Reserve was founded, and not until the Great Depression of the 1930s that government took a more firm hand in regulating business and financial activities.
   Before that, big business management showed a penchant for full control of what they do, with no government interference. This included wages and salaries, and treatment of workers. Management preferred government cooperation in controlling things that might interfere with profits, and that included labor costs as well as foreign competition.
   If management had treated workers fairly and humanely, there would have no need for labor unions. Taken to extremes, the reaction to unfair treatment leads to widespread strikes and violence. Even worse, this leads to a dictatorship of either a political group favorable to management or another group favorable to workers. In some countries, that's called the proletariat.
   At one extreme, then, is suppression of workers by governments supported by corporate management, and at the other extreme, suppression of management.
   Somewhere in the middle may be a better system, which would satisfy both sides in the social hierarchy. Put simply, that's what happened in America and in some other countries, avoiding both extremes.
   After much conflict, labor and management compromised. Moreover, that spirit of joint effort for the common good of all still prevails, despite occasional eruptions.
   One of these eruptions is a move to impose high taxes on goods imported from other nations. These are called tariffs, and are levied as a way to protect domestic producers.
   The problem with that, however, is that other countries retaliate, so consumers on both sides suffer as management raises prices to maintain profits. That doesn't last, because soon enough people stop buying.
   Result: Economic crash.
   It happened after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law on June 17, 1930, raising U.S. import taxes on more than 20,000 goods.
   Along with the stock market crash of the previous October, the combination of higher prices to consumers already suffering from lower wages and fewer jobs led to a worsening of an already harsh economic environment.
   If any of this sounds familiar to what's happening now, perhaps it's time to be afraid. Be very afraid.

   October 1929 saw a stock market crash. October 1987 saw another Wall Street debacle. This week, the stock market stumbled by more than 800 points on the widely followed Dow Jones Industrial Average.
   Is this a harbinger of things to come? Perhaps. Or not.

   Such a warning assumes that the stock market is directly related to the economy and is, as some put it, a barometer of economic growth. Others disagree, noting that very few Americans actually own stock, and many of those who do invest their money in mutual funds, rather than in individual companies.
   That, however, doesn't stop politicians from blaming others for things that they don't like.
   So why is the president criticizing the Fed for its efforts to smooth out radical changes in the economy even though activities on Wall Street stock markets have little directly to do with overall economic growth? Could it be that he wants full control of this, too, overturning nearly one hundred years of efforts to stabilize financial whiplash?