Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Paul Krugman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, March 17, 2008

I'm not sure I understand this passage from Paul Krugman's blog about Alan Greenspan's Financial Times article...
the man who failed to see the housing bubble and refused to do anything about subprime — and has yet to admit to making any mistakes — ends by reaffirming his laissez-faire faith:
It is important, indeed crucial, that any reforms in, and adjustments to, the structure of markets and regulation not inhibit our most reliable and effective safeguards against cumulative economic failure: market flexibility and open competition.
Grrr.
What part of that passage does Paul Krugman disagree with? Does he think reforms should inhibit market flexibility and open competition?

Perhaps he should take Mark Thoma's challenge: "As the newly appointed Head of Bubble Management, where do you think the next bubble will appear, how will you detect and verify that it is a bubble, and how will you deflate it without harming other sectors of the economy in the process?"
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I think the "grrr" is not at the mere idea of maintaining market flexibility and open competition, but at the ill-timed repetition of mantras when Greenspan might have taken the opportunity to acknowledge other aspects of a solution. The plain meaning of those code-phrases is clearly not applicable right now. Were "market flexibility" and "open competition" the hallmark of the Bear Stearns story? Hardly. It was insider-itis that got us into this mess, and Greenspan’s trying to signal his fellow insiders. He might as well have come out and said, "Relax, laissez-faire True Believers, we’re not going to let experience influence our beliefs or actions."
 
Written By: Jeff Darcy
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
I’m convinced we’re facing a crisis that is comparable to the crisis of 1929 and beyond. The problem is both sides have it right: too much regulation stifles growth and innovation, but the market itself is not magical and can in fact get caught in huge crises driven by excessive speculation and greed (and irrational exuberance). So one side yells "regulate" and the other says "laissez faire," but in and of itself, neither is a real solution. The wrong regulation can make things worse, the right moves can help overcome a crisis with less pain.

I don’t know...I write about the current crisis in general terms on my blog today, but I get the feeling we’re at the start of something very painful. This is like a perfect storm that is coming together in ways that will fundamentally alter the national and global economy. I hope I’m wrong.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"I don’t know..."

At last, something we all can agree on.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I hope I’m wrong
Knowing you, you probably are! :)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I agree that the Fed was not the place to burst this bubble.

But there was a recognizable bubble. Home prices taking off disproportionately on a handful of markets might have been the first clue. The number of people buying and reselling in under 6 months might have been another. Hell, HGTV should be renamed FlipTV.

Personally I’d have rather seen a legislative curb on introductory home rates over a bailout as the lesser of two evils. The psychological impact of that would have made it much more effective that it actually sounds.

In general too much of the economy is a paper economy these days. Speculation never ends well and usually ends ugly. If we are going to resort to bailouts, I’d prefer procedural damping upfront in its place. But in general when the government gets drawing into keeping speculation propped up we’re headed for just a bigger more disasterous fall.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Jon;
What part of that passage does Paul Krugman disagree with? Does he think reforms should inhibit market flexibility and open competition?
You’ve been reading him for how long, and still you ask this?

Erb:
I’m convinced we’re facing a crisis that is comparable to the crisis of 1929 and beyond
Yeah, sure. And if you ply this idea up long enough, you might even be able to install democrats into positions of power, right?
So one side yells "regulate" and the other says "laissez faire," but in and of itself, neither is a real solution.
Hmmm. Didn’t FDR make the same argument? Somehow, I’m not too shocked you’d try that trick, too.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
So one side yells "regulate" and the other says "laissez faire," but in and of itself, neither is a real solution.
Hmmm. Didn’t FDR make the same argument?
Huh? You seem compelled to react, Bithead, but you don’t give any counter arguments and what you do write seems, well, confused.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Well, above you, anyway.

Perhaps it’s escaped your vast sight, the massive failure that was FDR.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"I’m convinced we’re facing a crisis that is comparable to the crisis of 1929 and beyond."

Granted, I was not around to experience the 1929 crisis so the real comparisons may or may not be there. However, pretty much every economic retrenchment to take place during my adult lifetime has been compared to that sorry chapter of history; ’91, ’00 and now. And, as expected, comparisons of the then sitting presidents to the Hoover administration graced the punditocracy. While it may be viscerally appealing for some to use such rhetoric the recession history of the past couple of decades has been something less spectacular. We very well could have been on our way there in the late ’70s/early ’80s (double digits unemployment, inflation, interest) but that’s about it. I take these latter comparisons with a few Lot’s Wife-sized grains of salt (sorry Dale...).
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
So one side yells "regulate" and the other says "laissez faire," but in and of itself, neither is a real solution. The wrong regulation can make things worse, the right moves can help overcome a crisis with less pain.
The "right moves"!?

Yeah, right. Government simply has no means to determine the correct course of action. No feedback mechinism. In the marketplace, supply and demand provide the feedback. Regulation effectively distorts or destroys information that the free market uses to correct.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Huh? You seem compelled to react, Bithead, but you don’t give any counter arguments and what you do write seems, well, confused.
A counter to what? You didn’t provide any real argument.

You simply claim that the US is going to hell, and then you claim that the answer lies somewhere between free markets and regulation, without providing any real economic argument to support that.

You really don’t have an argument to counter, except in a very general way (i.e., your claim that the answer is a mix of free market and .gov regulation).
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You simply claim that the US is going to hell, and then you claim that the answer lies somewhere between free markets and regulation, without providing any real economic argument to support that.
I don’t think the US is going to hell, nor do I think this crisis can be contained to any one country. I was commenting on the different takes by Krugman and Greenspan.

Why this will hit the US? Well, I could write pages on that but the bottom line is this. We have sustained a trade deficit (current accounts deficit) by importing capital. If the dollar continues to fall, foreign capital will leave or go elsewhere. If the Fed cuts interest rates dramatically to halt a recession, that will pressure the dollar and make it hard to sustain the capital account. Ultimately, this is a recipe for stagflation, and means that the falling dollar will not create increased output. Trade may come in balance, but the economy will be slowed dramatically. This all is a result not just of domestic bubbles popping, but a side effect of globalization, and especially the freeing of global capital since the mid-eighties. This crisis has been brewing a long time, and our best chance to ward it off, I believe, was in the 90s when oil was cheap.

My comment about ideology-driven responses to a crisis was basically to note that a lot of people don’t think through problems, but just react on the basis of an ideological bias. Ideologies are simplifications and interpretations of reality which I believe people put far too much trust in.

I wrote on my blog today (’What a mess!’) about the economic problems (why this is not like 1979), and the previous blog entry was about post-ideology, how ideology-driven understandings of reality are misguided and, I believe, becoming anachronistic.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

Perhaps it’s escaped your vast sight, the massive failure that was FDR.
Wasn’t FDR Ronald Reagan’s favorite President? In any event, if you think FDR was a massive failure, you are in disagreement with just about every historian, left and right. Laughable.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Wasn’t FDR Ronald Reagan’s favorite President?
Argumentum ad hominem.
In any event, if you think FDR was a massive failure, you are in disagreement with just about every historian, left and right.
It took WWII, almost 9 years after FDR took office, to pull the US economy out of depression. As far as economics go, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would call FDR a success.


 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
if you think FDR was a massive failure, you are in disagreement with just about every historian, left and right. Laughable.


FDR’s policies had the effect of continuing the Depression. They were economically stupid, most modern economists argee (those that don’t are likely driven by politics, not economics).

FDR’s first New Deal (the NRA) was the most fascist economic policy enacted in US history. His secnond New Deal never passed, but was based upon Italian fascist economic planning. The final New Deal, which we all know and love, was a mix of ad hoc incoherent policies.

FDR also set about ignoring constitutional restrictions (particularly the 10th Amendment) on a scale never seen before in American politics.

FDR combined economic stupidity, fascism, and the short-circuiting of the US constitution.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It took WWII, almost 9 years after FDR took office, to pull the US economy out of depression.


My understanding is that it was the deregulation at the end of WW2 that did the trick, not the war effort itself.

Add to that in ’38 we had a recession within the Depression.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Wasn’t FDR Ronald Reagan’s favorite President?

Argumentum ad hominem.
Uh, no. It wasn’t an argument, it was a question.

And Don’s diatribe against FDR seems a bit over the top, almost desperate. And it was the war effort — the massive government spending — that really stopped the depression, not de-regulation (though that would fit better your little ideological alternate reality, so I’m sure you’re going to choose to believe it — interpret reality to fit your beliefs, that’s what ideological folk do!)

In Great Britain the Conservatives tried to simply ride it through, and their lack of policy initiative didn’t help. The fastest growing economies were in Germany and the Soviet Union during the depression. In your view, is it impossible to increase government spending and not be fascist? (And does that make President George W. Bush a fascist, since government spending has increased dramatically during his watch?) You throw the "f" word around in a silly manner.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Don’s statement was spot on. He stands as the worst presdient on record. Given Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, that’s saying quite a bit, but it still holds true.

The fact is, WWII was what got us out of the depression.
FDR made it longer than it needed tobe by socialiszing everything he could get his hands on. I recognize that makes him a hero to some, of course... but socialism caused the depression to be worse than it should have been.





 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us

FDR made it longer than it needed tobe by socialiszing everything he could get his hands on.
LOL! You obviously don’t understand economics or the depression. Oh well, you are allowed to be ignorant. So you think if FDR had just done less than the Great Depression would have magically ended — even though that didn’t work in Great Britain. Learn, Bithead, question your rather lazy biases, get out and actually LEARN!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Heh. More than you, apparently, if you don’t know about that.

Oh...And... Erb?
I’m about questioning YOUR lazy bias.
Then again, so are most people in here.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
does that make President George W. Bush a fascist, since government spending has increased dramatically during his watch?
The key point isn’t spending, but government control of the economy. Spending on military hardware isn’t in itself fascist. Controlling the economy for the good of the collective is.
You throw the "f" word around in a silly manner.


Not at all. It’s a fact that the 2nd New Deal was a direct lift from Italian fascism. And, the key point of fascism is that it’s central economic control for the common good.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So you think if FDR had just done less than the Great Depression would have magically ended — even though that didn’t work in Great Britain.
Oh—why did it last so long? Why did the others depressions, the ones that were not "managed", shorter?

What a recession or depression represent is malinvestment. The government can’t really determine what that malinvestment is (except in a general sense), and often reinforces it, making things worse long term. The free market will self correct, punishing bad investment and rewarding good investment.

So no, the free market won’t "magically" end it; it will reward the good investments and punish the bad ones, pushing the economy in the right direction. Government generally stands in the way of the correct economic course (or courses, since it’s really about many individual decisions).

It’s really the same reason that the command economies can’t compete with free markets, and why we won the Cold War. Prices contain information, and when you overrule free market prices you destroy this information.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"You really don’t have an argument to counter, except in a very general way "

The Oracle of Delphi. Vague generalities, hints, banalities, non sequiturs, etc. If we don’t understand, it is our ignorance. An unfunny Prof. Irwin Corey.


"My understanding is that it was the deregulation at the end of WW2 that did the trick, not the war effort itself."

Well, the war effort did build a lot of industrial capacity, the aluminum and aircraft industries for example. It also gave a lot of people job skills and training they never would have gotten otherwise. And the pent up demand from all the forced savings. Sort of a five year plan that worked. Of course if, as you say, government regulation remained, it probably would have gone differently.

"The fastest growing economies were in Germany and the Soviet Union during the depression"

Hardly much of a commendation. And who provided the statistics? Did the citizens of either country really benefit from the pouring of massive resources into their respective military industrial complexes?


"Then again, so are most people in here."

Nope, no question here.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Oh—why did it last so long?
Are you saying it’s because of FDR’s policies? No. Great Britain did not engage in big government programs, and it lasted long for the Brits too. World protectionism, which the US helped reinforce, played a major role. Note as well that the USSR and Nazi Germany were doing better earlier because of their government spending — and the government spending of WWII helped pull us out of it. Economists generally believe FDR was too meager in what he was willing to do to prime the pump. So to just say "his policies lengthened it" are silly.

Also, there is nothing in the market that can stop the kind of downward spiral that leads to a depression. Market forces alone can get stuck, that’s why the Brits couldn’t just wait it out and hope the market would fix things. Faith in pure markets is as misguided as faith in government regulation.

But I agree with you completely about how bad command economies are and how the Cold War was won on the strength of markets. But look at the post-war era. The Bretton Woods system set up the growth of the market competition and ultimately globalization. It started with the gold standard and fixed exchange rates to create confidence in the system. The US launched the IMF and World Bank to support this, and the GATT created agreements to regulate and support free trade. These were regulations, agreements and not simply letting the market do it on its own. That’s because politics matters; the market cannot make the political compromises that are needed to get states and various interest groups to buy into the system. The key is to have the right regulations (including ones to deal with crises) and NOT to infringe market mechanisms unduly. Hence the buy out of Bear Stearns makes sense, even if a total free market approach would have said "let it go under."

So yes, markets are far superior to government regulation, let alone the horror that is a command economy. But regulations are necessary and the issue is how much; moreover, in times an active government may be able to help avert the worst aspects of a crisis. The danger (and one can argue this has happened) is that once active, it’s hard to get the government to cease growing more active.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
" Note as well that the USSR and Nazi Germany were doing better earlier because of their government spending"

That depends on whether you think it is ’better’ to spend on weapons and such. I doubt whether the average Russian or German was doing much ’better’ solely because of government spending because so much of it was going to their respective militaries.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
During the Great Depression, unemployment hit 25%. Erb, when we get above single digit unemployment, let me know, and I’ll consider your viewpoint then.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Perhaps a better question to ask is why it lasted so long in this country, while in other parts of the world, it didn’t last quite so long. Boris is laying claim to the title of ’historian’, so, let’s get the historian answer that question. Interestingly, he’s already made reference to that point. But I will guarantee you that in the process of that denial, he will ignore the points he’s already made.

Harun:
During the Great Depression, unemployment hit 25%. Erb, when we get above single digit unemployment, let me know, and I’ll consider your viewpoint then.
Truly.
we keep hearing all these dire comparisons to 1930s America, when referring to the economy of today. Yet in the economy of today and employment is in the single numbers, inflation is relatively low, even by modern standards, so logically, the question could be asked by what measure does the left draw such comparisons?

Apparently, the answer is "only in their imagination".

Erb:
Hence the buy out of Bear Stearns makes sense, even if a total free market approach would have said "let it go under."
You might want to ask the former employees of Bear Stearns whether or not, the company went under.I think they might express a different view.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Perhaps a better question to ask is why it lasted so long in this country, while in other parts of the world, it didn’t last quite so long.
Where didn’t it last as long, other than states that increased their government spending dramatically? As noted, countries like Great Britain that did not increase government spending had it last just as long; it was overall a global event. Face it, you really don’t have anything to support your claims here, Bithead. Admit it.

And I have no idea what you mean about asking the employees of Bear Stearns. Do you think they oppose the government involvement? Do you even think about what you’re writing? Are you "typing under the influence?" *eyes rolling*
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Where didn’t it last as long, other than states that increased their government spending dramatically?
You really don’t know this stuff, do you? the anwer is, just about everywhere.
Do you think they oppose the government involvement? Do you even think about what you’re writing? Are you "typing under the influence?" *eyes rolling*
As a matter of fact, there’s a lawsuit pending... Apparently they figure their employee held stock would be worth far more were the government to have kept it’s nose out of it. Their stock in short would be worth more on the open market than it is after the government’s involvement.

Once again, you’re arguing from fantasy, Erb, on both points.





 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"You might want to ask the former employees of Bear Stearns whether or not, the company went under"

Not to mention the stockholders. I can’t wait to get my next quarterly statement. Thank you, Mr Cayne, you #^$*^%. Wasn’t there an article or two here awhile back about how corporate CEOs earned those gigantic compensation packages because they make money for their shareholders?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
gas:
"In any event, if you think FDR was a massive failure, you are in disagreement with just about every historian, left and right."
Erb? Amity Shlaes just beat FDR like a rented mule in her book, last year. And that was over sixty years after John T. Flynn.

Shut the f*ck up.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You really don’t know this stuff, do you? the anwer is, just about everywhere.
In other words, you have no clue, so you throw out a blanket ’the answer is everywhere’ to avoid embarrassing yourself by admitting you’re in way over your head. Ignorance, thy name is Bithead.

Of course, Billy displays irrationalism in just about his every post. Hint: giving an example of one historian (and you overstate it) who questions aspects of the big deal is not the same as denying that just about every historian agrees that FDR was NOT a massive failure. You need to learn to how to make a rational argument, Billy, you take the lazy way out, with snide comments and logical fallacies. I guess that prevents you from actually having to defend your positions or engage points contrary to your bias.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Idiot: there are over a thousand books without one speck of cereal in the lot, all within twenty feet of where I now sit. You tell me how many are required as citations against your weezil-squishy "just about" and I’ll get to work.

Note to inlookers: this is another Pearls Before Swine Moment. The thing to understand is that there is no fact of historians’ dissent from his cheerleading that is going to penetrate his [ahem] "bias".
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
In other words, you have no clue, so you throw out a blanket ’the answer is everywhere’ to avoid embarrassing yourself by admitting you’re in way over your head. Ignorance, thy name is Bithead.
Nice try, Erb.
The fact is the recovery was world wide except here in the states by the time the war came along. Billy is somewhat better equipped for the cites than I, but I’ve already done my research, 30 years gone.

And I note your comments about Bear Stearns kinda fell off the map, Erb. Why is that?

(Snicker)
I suppose you don’t think you’ve buried yourself, and maybe nobody else will either, if you just ignore it, huh?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
That depends on whether you think it is ’better’ to spend on weapons and such. I doubt whether the average Russian or German was doing much ’better’ solely because of government spending because so much of it was going to their respective militaries.
True, and I neglected this angle; A line needs be drawn between ’social spending" which Erb likes, and Military spending, which Erb detests.
Interestingly, the end of the depression didn’t come here in the states until we started ramping up against Germany and Japan.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Bithead, you just don’t know your history.

When FDR took office, the annual GDP was $56.4 billion. By 1937 it hit $90 billion, but 1940 it hit $100 billion. If you want to claim that things were worse here than elsewhere, for a longer time, show your work. Also, note if the places that recovered had more government spending than here, since that’s clearly the case in places like Nazi Germany. Great Britain only recovered when it started a policy of mass rearmament in the late thirties, responding to Germany’s growing strength. But that’s more government spending.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Heh. And was Military equipment part of that GDP?

A little advice; I gather that there’s a verbal/citational two-by-four with your name on it.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
See, Erb, the thing you’re missing is tere’s multiple versions of governmet spending. When the Military gets the money, the money is not being doled out to individuals as it is in the social spending model.

The former, by your own numbers, is by far the only beneficial of the two.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Hey bithead, so far you’ve not put up anything to support your argument, and in fact seem to be in denial of the US GDP growth, and how government spending fostered any recovery in other countries. You’ve never made a case for saying that one could have recovered without government spending.

You want to dance around with silly comments to avoid admitting that you are in over your head. You were wrong, you were called on it, and you probably should just move on to another thread.

I mean, you’re getting to the absurd point that you’re trying to argue that somehow military spending isn’t government spending! LOL! You need two courses, one in history, one in economics.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Of course, Billy displays irrationalism in just about his every post."

Wrong, as usual. Emotionalism, perhaps, but contrary to your faux intellectual rigor, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with saying something with emotion. One can make a rational and cogent argument emotionally. It does, however, give you an excuse (not a reason) to belittle others’ comments as you slither away. It is sometimes an effective countermeasure but, like other countermeasures, loses its effectiveness once your opponent becomes familiar with it.
You remind me of the character Christophe in ’Black Like Me’. You use spotty and superficial knowledge, bluff, and condescension to attempt to intellectually intimidate others.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Unemployment in 1938—-19.0%
" 1940—-14.6%
" 1942—- 4.7%

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

Yeah, his policies really beat that depression. Heckuva recovery.

By the way, US military spending was pretty insignificant until about 1940. Military pay was even cut early in his reign.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
You remind me of the character Christophe in ’Black Like Me’. You use spotty and superficial knowledge, bluff, and condescension to attempt to intellectually intimidate others.
Your imagining things. I’m just an easy going guy wanting to actually discuss real issues without the posturing and need to attack people for having different perspectives. I try to be respectful, and not insult, except at times in response to personal attacks.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"I’m just an easy going..."
I’ll say.

A lot like a poisonous mold. There is never anything spectacular about it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Hey bithead, so far you’ve not put up anything to support your argument,


So far, everyone appears willing to do so for me, ad I let them. And if you had two brain cells to run together, you’d understand why.

But allow me, since you seem bent on me making you out a fool as well, to suggest a little light reading. Not that I think it’ll change your mind... facts seldom do, after all... but here you go...

How FDR Made the Depression Worse by Robert Higgs.

Here’s a paper (PDf) Makes fairly the same argument as Higgs.

And here’s another little snip I’ve been keeping (apparently) for four years, now, in my quiver fr just such an occasion:

FDR’S Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Depression, Jim Powell Powell’s book is particularly potent just today, with so much attention being focused on race.

An interesting paper on the topic is from Chari, Kehoe and McGratten. The paper was written just a couple years ago now. They argue that increased labor rigidity...(Read, bowing to unions) caused the depression to be longer.

Even History News Network is forced in their tounge bath of a rehab of FDR, to admit:
At home, FDR quite simply failed to end the Depression. After numerous ups and downs, the American economy in the summer of 1939 was barely above its level of November, 1932. The New Deal’s relief programs never provided for more than half the unemployed at any one time. Its first industrial recovery program, the National Recovery Administration, was a crashing failure. Roosevelt ’s subsequent resort to a polarizing politics of class conflict probably did him political good but surely got in the way of economic revival. His delight in the exercise of power–and occasional grabs for more of it (most notoriously, the plan to pack the Supreme Court)–made plausible unfounded accusations that he wanted to be a dictator.
I do have many more such examples. Gee, ya know, Erb, I’m going to have to write them, saying YOU don’t think they’re "serious historians". I can’t wait to post their reactions to this.


Thus endeth the lesson.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I mean, you’re getting to the absurd point that you’re trying to argue that somehow military spending isn’t government spending! LOL!
Ummm... just for laughs, point out where I said that.
Else, retract.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Eric (and everyone else) — Get Powell’s book.

I’m tellin’ ya.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Actually, I already have it here. Been a couple years, I think, since I’ve had it open, though. (When I buy a new book, I tend to keep links about it handy) The argument about how FDR managed to keep blacks down is a powerful one, though, as I recall it, and I remember wondering at the time why Democrats revere such a man so greatly. Finally concluded the myth was stronger than the reality.

And have you noticed who hasn’t responded?
Happens every time; Challenge him, and he slithers away.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider