The readings from The New Deal and Bloomberg’s New York both address different ways to deal with New York’s economy. In this case, the recession is the question in concern. On one end Wallace proposes to solve New York City’s problem with a solution similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal. On the other hand, Bloomberg decided to market NYC as a luxurious city to convince the rich to spend their money in Gotham. Does either proposal really provide a solution to the recession?
I am skeptical. First to tackle the New Deal option, it is debatable whether the public works programs actually got us out of the depression in the first place. Many argue that what really got us out of the recession was the war. If anything, maybe Wallace should propose we get into another war (which in reality wouldn’t help because we no longer are a producing city). Secondly to address Bloomberg’s Luxury City, it defiantly follows suit with his idea of being a CEO mayor. Just as he proposed to be CEO of NY, he tried marketing New York like a business. The more I read about Bloomberg, the more I admire how clever he was. By running NY as a business, he took politics out of the government. So, when he branded NY, he made all those against his ideas, against NY as well. Anyone who disagreed with him became unpatriotic. In this respect, he reminded me of Robert Moses, he got done what he wanted by bypassing the normal democratic procedures. He did this, just like Moses, because he believed he knew what was best for New York. But, analogous to Moses, the results are mixed. Is there a better way to get New York City’s economy back or are these the only two options?
