Breaking News
Comcast Close To Buying NBC
That’s a lot! Detail here. (via)
You know, one of the things I like about being a liberal is that if you come into an issue with pre-assumptions and then the evidence contradictions your initial assumptions, well then you throw out your initial thesis or at least modify it (ask a scientist sometime about that). Conservatives, on the other hand, just make stuff up to support their assertion. Facts be damned.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Hooked on Hoovernomics
I was disappointed to see George Will try and push this line of shit as well, that FDR “made things worse.” If only because Will is one of the few Republicans who seems to put logic over party affiliation. But alas.
FDR wasn’t uniformly brilliant in how he dealt with the Great Depression, but his mistakes actually were mistakes of conservatism, as I believe Krugman has pointed out.
As eric notes here, “People who know about the New Deal know this — know about Roosevelt’s reluctance to implement direct relief programs, know about the dissolution of CWA in 1934, know the WPA came only in 1935, know that Roosevelt cut it back in 1937-38, know that Keynes wrote Roosevelt in February of 1938 to criticize him for insufficient relief spending for this very reason.”
In addition to all that, Roosevelt tried to balance the budget in 1937-38 by cutting spending and raising taxes — exactly what you DON’T DO until the economy is clearly out of recession and in a growth period.
The problem with Keynesianism is not that it fails in the abstract, but that it is a counsel of perfection for politicians. Nobody, not even Democrats, seems to be willing to follow the piece of Keynesianism that allows the recessionary policies of increased spending and cut taxes to work, which is the growing economy period, when the government must be willing to raise taxes and cut spending in order to pay down the debt that accumulated during the recession.
I’m reading The Shock Doctrine right now. It is fascinating and maddening at the same time. In every instance that she cites, Klein proves that Free-market economies come with a very heavy price, if they work at all. And they mostly don’t.
How can they, when the deck is stacked against them by Chicago Boys and corporate intervention?
Again, I know next to nothing about economics, but it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that Friedman was wrong and Keynes was right.
LOL,
FDR can be given credit for trying hard, but that’s about it. A hero to the left for creating the modern state with an all powerful, all overbearing government that will fix everything. We still are haunted by the fiscal monsters he created. While he had good intentions, he never understood that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Social Security is just one example of his ability to overlook mathematics and human nature. Many of the fiscal nightmares we are still unable to actually fund were created under his administration.
What he should be remembered for is that a powerful politician with a populist bent is a threat to the nation as a whole. His attempt to thwart the Constitution and run roughshod over the system of checks and balances put in place by our founders was disgraceful. Fortunately his attack upon our nation’s foundation was defeated.
We were in hard times during the depression, but hard times come and go. FDR created a welfare state and mentality that still weakens the country. We went from a nation that conquered this continent to the pitiful sight of Hurricane Katrina where the helpless relied on Uncle Suger instead of themselves to get out of harms way.
“Again, I know next to nothing about economics, but it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that Friedman was wrong and Keynes was right.”
It is easy to see the first is true, but I would be fascinated to hear your case against Milton Friedman. The Chicago school of Economics is the best thing that ever came out of that town. So please tell me, where did Uncle Miltie go wrong?
P.S. the term is generally held to be rocket scientist or brain surgeon.
AO,
Actually, why don’t you start with your critique of Keynesianism, since you seem to feel confident that you could have done much better than FDR in helping this “nation of whiners,” in Gramm’s already-immortal phrase?
I’ll give you the prompt:
Stimulating demand by increasing government spending and cutting taxes during an economic downturn, and repaying debt by reducing spending and increasing taxes during an economic upturn, is a worse economic policy than maintaining a low rate of taxation and spending at all times (except in wars of aggression where there still will be a low rate of taxation but a high rate of spending) because …
You take it from there.
P.S. the term is generally held to be rocket scientist or brain surgeon.
I am aware of all Internet traditions. That was a joke, son.
Milton Friedman definition of freedom is vastly different from most sentient humans. We bipeds generally like to think of freedom as something on a personal level. Friedman was more concerned about the freedom of the market to bulldoze over any dissent or complaint.
After Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Thatcherism, Poland, Paraguay, China, south Africa, the repression, the beatings, the disappeared, all of which walked hand in hand with Friedman’s theories, you can say it’s best thing that ever happened?
I think I could probably speak for every one here when I say STFU, AO.
His attempt to thwart the Constitution and run roughshod over the system of checks and balances put in place by our founders was is disgraceful.
I’ll see your LOL and raise you a guffaw, AO. You’ve just described GWB to a tee.
FDR created a welfare state and mentality that still weakens the country.
Oh, bullshit. Tell your grandpa how fucking weak you think he is for living so goddamned long and mooching off the public teat.
I’ll see your LOL and raise you a guffaw, AO. You’ve just described GWB to a tee.
If you’re so Amused, why don’t you just Observe, and spare the rest of us your pretentious pronouncements filled with grammar, spelling, and syntactical errors?
Your lectures on FDR’s “running roughshod” over the Constitution would be laughable if they weren’t so pathetically partisan. Ever hear of Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the Patriot Act?
What a silly little man, trolling a website just to piss people off.
I’ll just add, by way of representing, that you know as little about Chicago as you do about economics and FDR.
There are some economists that agree with AO’s opinion that the New Deal worsened and lengthened the depression, but they’re in the minority.
Amused Commenter: We went from a nation that conquered this continent to the pitiful sight of Hurricane Katrina where the helpless relied on Uncle Suger instead of themselves to get out of harms way.
So… you’re saying that the government not supplying any help to the helpless people trapped in New Orleans was the right thing to do. That if they didn’t get out of the way it’s their own damn fault.
Oh, my god! You’re right! The scales have fallen from my eyes! Those helpless people have only themselves to blame for not personally verifying that the levees were safe. It’s there fault they didn’t have the money or means to leave.
And nobody should ever give any money to the Red Cross ever again, those damn enablers!!
Yeah, well, I think Krugman had it just about right when he took George will to school last Sunday on Stephanopoulos’ show.
Sorry, George Will, not will.
Watch out, Sean, now that you’ve taken up for the Katrina victims, jmccann is sure to show up to trash you.
Remember her? Haven’t seen hide nor hair of her since November Fourth!
Where to begin?
PG,
Congratulations on staying focused on the actual topic at hand.
The first and foremost flaw in John Maynard’s fantasy scheme is that Government will scale back spending in good times when tax revenues are climbing.
Second, governments can’t create money, only confiscate it. Money spent by the government is money not spent by the private sector that created it through providing goods or survices and accumulating a surplus.
Third and last for the moment. Keynesian policies ultimately lead to an increasing adoption of central command economie policies. Central command economic policies have a global record of failure compared to free market principles.
Duros,
Please expand on your perceptions of Friedman. I don’t believe you’ve really ever read or understood the man’s thinking. Friedman’s ideas regarding both economic and political freedom are four square with American ideals. Your attempt to paint Friedman with a brush tarred with South American horror stories is an illustration of how little you grasp Friedman. Am I to understand that you are defending current Venezualan economic and political policies?
Southern Quaker,
Leftists are always screaming about GWB and the Constitution. I am troubled by some of the actions that were spawned by 9/11. Most of which seem to center around the idea of doing anything but racial or ethnic profiling. Searching a little old white lady on a plane for instance instead of targeting islamics. But I disgress, FDR’s plot to pack the Supreme Court historically stands alone in it’s audacity.
Bruce,
Do you actually know anything about American history? See above regarding FDR and the Supreme Court.
Sean,
No I’m saying you’re a damn fool to depend on the government to bail you out of anything. To see Americans who only a few generations back forged this country out of the wilderness reduced to the utter helplessness of those folks in New Orleans is pathetic.
Amused Commenter: No I’m saying you’re a damn fool to depend on the government to bail you out of anything. Tosee Americans who only a few generations back forged this country out of the wilderness reduced to the utter helplessness of those folks in New Orleans is pathetic.
No, you’re saying the same thing you said before: Those folks trapped in New Orleans have only themselves to blame for being so helpless. So if they find themselves overwhelmed by monstrous storm it’s their own damn fault for relying on the people and systems they paid for to protect and help them.
So you are not at all troubled by warrantless wiretapping, confiscation of property without criminal conviction (or even charges being filed), determining that the Office of the President should tell the Justice department what is legal, detention of peaceful protestors and…
Nevermind. Why do we even bother?
AO,
Your first point is one I’ve already made, and it speaks to a defect in politics, not in Keynes’s theory. All early-to-mid 20th century economic models, Friedman’s included, assume a certain kind of rationality that doesn’t take into account the other facts affecting human behavior. That’s why they gave out Nobel prizes for game theory and other economic studies that more closely approximated how people actually behave.
Your second point appears to be an essentially moral one: “That’s not your money, Government, that’s MY money!” This point has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of Keynesianism in remedying the problem of the Great Depression; it’s only to do with whether you personally dislike it.
On what empirical evidence do you base your third point? Did Keynes advocate command-and-control in some work of his I haven’t read? Government spending doesn’t require increased regulation or state ownership of industry (which I assume is what you mean by “command and control”). Conservatives seem quite enthusiastic about massive government spending on defense, most of which goes to the private sector. I’ve never noticed that y’all worry that all this spending will lead to government command and control of Johns Hopkins University.
FDR only threatened the pack the Court — he never actually did it. Moreover, if you’re au courant with research on the Court, the “switch in time” has been revealed to be a myth, once you undertand the judges’ evolving ideas about the commerce clause. (The “switch in time” no longer is taught in law school con law classes, not even by my 87-year-old professor.) So FDR had no effect on the Court beyond his nominees, which is the exact same effect every president has on the Court.
Would you like to explain what Constitution-threatening thing FDR actually did? Judging by your enthusiasm for ethnic profiling, I’m guessing you’ll be as supportive of Japanese internment as Michelle Malkin and the conservatives of FDR’s day were.
AO,
Your first point is one I’ve already made, and it speaks to a defect in politics, not in Keynes’s theory. All early-to-mid 20th century economic models, Friedman’s included, assume a certain kind of rationality that doesn’t take into account the other facts affecting human behavior. That’s why they gave out Nobel prizes for game theory and other economic studies that more closely approximated how people actually behave.
Your second point appears to be an essentially moral one: “That’s not your money, Government, that’s MY money!” This point has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of Keynesianism in remedying the problem of the Great Depression; it’s only to do with whether you personally dislike it.
On what empirical evidence do you base your third point? Did Keynes advocate command-and-control in some work of his I haven’t read? Government spending doesn’t require increased regulation or state ownership of industry (which I assume is what you mean by “command and control”). Conservatives seem quite enthusiastic about massive government spending on defense, most of which goes to the private sector. I’ve never noticed that y’all worry that all this spending will lead to government command and control of Johns Hopkins University.
FDR only threatened the pack the Court — he never actually did it. Moreover, if you’re au courant with research on the Court, the “switch in time” has been revealed to be a myth, once you undertand the judges’ evolving ideas about the commerce clause. (The “switch in time” no longer is taught in law school con law classes, not even by my 87-year-old professor.) So FDR had no effect on the Court beyond his nominees, which is the exact same effect every president has on the Court.
Would you like to explain what Constitution-threatening thing FDR actually did? Judging by your enthusiasm for ethnic profiling, I’m guessing you’ll be as supportive of Japanese internment as Michelle Malkin and the conservatives of FDR’s day were.
Amused Observer:
What PG said.
On a personal note, yes, I know a little about American history. I’ve lived through quite a bit of it. But thanks for asking, even if in a (completely unjustified) smug tone.
I will give you props, though, for proofreading this time. Much better! I give you a B minus on your little essay.
Your attempt to paint Friedman with a brush tarred with South American horror stories is an illustration of how little you grasp Friedman.
Every brush used to paint Friedman uses blood red.
No I’m saying you’re a damn fool to depend on the government to bail you out of anything.
Just never mind this part:
So you are not at all troubled by…
He’s troubled because they haven’t gone far enough.
The only shining example of free-market Friedmanism in action?
Somalia.
Look how well that’s working out.
Earth to Duros,
What alternative universe are you orbiting in? Perhaps you might describe your views of just what Milton Friedman’s principles were?
Indeed FDR’s attack on the Constitution was thwarted. The Constitution was an inconvenie ncethat stood in the way of creating an even bigger federal government.
My second point regarding government vs private money is not one of morality rather competence. Who do I believe would make the most competent decision regarding the rational use of money, he who created it or a government employee who has no stake in aquiring the money and whose personal welfare won’t be impacted by the wise or unwise use of it.
I don’t believe I mentioned Japnese internment. It would however make sense to place a much higher security priority on Islamic nationals rather than obvious American grandmothers.
Am I to understand that you are defending current Venezualan economic and political policies?
Why shouldn’t I?
That monster!
OMG, it just gets worse!
Perhaps you might describe your views of just what Milton Friedman’s principles were?
AO, Honestly, I don’t know much about him, but the evidence I have so far seems to be that his guiding principles were Fuck the poor and the middle-class and stomp on them if they get out of line.
Free-market economies are not free. Someone has to pay the cost. And it ain’t the upper class.
Oh, and AO?
You forgot to proofread again.
Who do I believe would make the most competent decision regarding the rational use of money, he who created it or a government employee who has no stake in aquiring (sic) the money and whose personal welfare won’t be impacted by the wise or unwise use of it.
But we’re not talking about personal welfare here. We’re talking about the welfare of the society as a whole.
In your example, I would certainly hope that the government employee actually knows how to do his job, and not simply be loyal. In that case, the employee would have a personal stake in the outcome as he/she is also a member of society as a whole.
We are all part of a larger structure and, as some radical leftist commie hippie said some 2,000 years ago, we work better as a team.
Furthermore,
Clearly, Chavez has been bad for Venezuela.
Hopefully, there is an image there.
If not, it is here.
Well, but Duros, he does rag on the U.S. a bit. And we obviously can’t have that.
Duros:
Surely you can’t be defending Chavez!
After all, this is a man who was elected and then re-elected, fair and square, with large majorities, a man who was brought back into power after a coup by popular demand, a man who gracefully accepted the failure of a referendum that would have expanded his power.
Surely you can see he is obviously the new Hitler! Or is it Mao? Or maybe Castro?
Anyway, he’s dangerous. I know this because FOX “News” told me, and Amused Observer, that he is.
I’m going to throw in with Duros here. If you improve the lives of that many of your constituents without seriously harming the lives of a number of yours or any other people, than I’ll support you, left or right wing, Venezuelan, Iranian, Chinese or otherwise.
TFJ, Parthey.
Amused Observer,
Indeed FDR’s attack on the Constitution was thwarted. The Constitution was an inconvenie ncethat stood in the way of creating an even bigger federal government.
Could you speak in terms of history instead of bizarre generalities? How was FDR ultimately “thwarted” by either the Constitution or the Court in “creating an even bigger federal government”? I pointed out that the majority of the Supreme Court came around to FDR’s and Congress’s view of the commerce clause. (See Wickard v. Filburn, the high-water mark of the Court’s acceptance of what constitutes “commerce.”) A conservative view of the Constitution temporarily obstructed both state and federal regulation, which is not precisely the same thing as a “bigger” government, as “bigger” generally is measured in budgetary and manpower terms — “more intrusive” is the term favored by literate conservatives when speaking of regulation. But the Constitution, despite what you may have been told, is not necessarily contiguous with “what Amused Observer thinks the Constitution says.”
Who do I believe would make the most competent decision regarding the rational use of money, he who created it or a government employee who has no stake in aquiring the money and whose personal welfare won’t be impacted by the wise or unwise use of it.
And your “beliefs” are very important for religion, but they aren’t very important in a discussion of economic history and policy. What is your empirical evidence that government cannot spur a recessionary economy more effectively than “the person who created” the wealth? And in the absence of empirical evidence, why do you think anyone should care what your “beliefs” are?
I mentioned Japanese internment because it is an instance where *I* believe FDR did not act constitutionally, even though the Supreme Court at the time agreed (subsequent decisions indicate that they wouldn’t allow it to happen today). I thought I would offer it as an alternative to your discredited claim that FDR’s court-packing plan was a) unconstitutional (nothing in the Constitution constrains the Court to 9 members); or b) actually had an effect on anything at all.
PG, it’s clear that AO’s notation of the Supreme Court is diversionary. Meaning he’s got nothing.
AO, do you actually know anything about American history?
Heh.
Damn that commie Eleanor Roosevelt. That’s what they used to say.
FDR was So Wrong. Landslide after Landslide proves that Republicans were right about FDR. He helps working people. That’s BAD!!!
btw, Milton Friedman co-wrote a ‘classic’ book about how lack of money supply caused the Great Depression which also ignored the real causes like extreme income inequality resulting a hard pressed working class and farmers working longer for less (remembrer they were dumping milk before Wall Street’s fall, a greedy upper class betting on greater credit being imposed upon working people, with unsustainable leverage. Sounds like today. Milton Friedman said that just allowing more ‘credit’ and more money supply would have prevented the Depression. Unfortunately, it’s ignoring the underlying dishonesty of extreme bets on credit (aka “Leverage”) which is also the cause of today’s economic crisis. Friedman’s ‘classic’ is a fiction. Keynes had a more fundamental critique of Depression economics…that Demand needs to be stoked in order for a return to growth. Without income and demand the majority of people will not buy and all the supply in the world won’t help if income isn’t there to allow people to buy.
LOL
Where to begin?
FDR was the worst president EVAR. The nation would have been much better of if Hoover, then Alf Landin, had led us through the 30s and 40s.
Milton Friedman, the only economist I have ever read (if you don’t count the Cliff’s Notes for “Atlas Shrugged”) is God Incarnate and is never wrong.
The Republic will survive Carter, er, I mean Obama.
Poor people are poor because they are lazy disgusting slugs who refuse to take such basic actions as walking out of the path of a 400-mile-wide hurricane. They have only themselves to blame for their plight. Well, themselves and Uncle “Suger”.
I hope you forgot to close the sarcasm tag, because you can’t be serious.
That was me, doing an impression of Guess Who.
Oh, well, okay then.
Good job.
TFJ.