PDA

View Full Version : APP - Misguided Monetary Mentalities - by Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman



FUCK THE POLICE
10-14-2009, 04:15 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Misguided Monetary Mentalities

By PAUL KRUGMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: October 11, 2009
One lesson from the Great Depression is that you should never underestimate the destructive power of bad ideas. And some of the bad ideas that helped cause the Depression have, alas, proved all too durable: in modified form, they continue to influence economic debate today.


What ideas am I talking about? The economic historian Peter Temin has argued that a key cause of the Depression was what he calls the “gold-standard mentality.” By this he means not just belief in the sacred importance of maintaining the gold value of one’s currency, but a set of associated attitudes: obsessive fear of inflation even in the face of deflation; opposition to easy credit, even when the economy desperately needs it, on the grounds that it would be somehow corrupting; assertions that even if the government can create jobs it shouldn’t, because this would only be an “artificial” recovery.
In the early 1930s this mentality led governments to raise interest rates and slash spending, despite mass unemployment, in an attempt to defend their gold reserves. And even when countries went off gold, the prevailing mentality made them reluctant to cut rates and create jobs.
But we’re past all that now. Or are we?
America isn’t about to go back on the gold standard. But a modern version of the gold standard mentality is nonetheless exerting a growing influence on our economic discourse. And this new version of a bad old idea could undermine our chances for full recovery.
Consider first the current uproar over the declining international value of the dollar.
The truth is that the falling dollar is good news. For one thing, it’s mainly the result of rising confidence: the dollar rose at the height of the financial crisis as panicked investors sought safe haven in America, and it’s falling again now that the fear is subsiding. And a lower dollar is good for U.S. exporters, helping us make the transition away from huge trade deficits to a more sustainable international position.
But if you get your opinions from, say, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, you’re told that the falling dollar is a terrible thing, a sign that the world is losing faith in America (and especially, of course, in President Obama). Something, you believe, must be done to stop the dollar’s slide. And in practice the dollar’s decline has become a stick with which conservative members of Congress beat the Federal Reserve, pressuring the Fed to scale back its efforts to support the economy.
We can only hope that the Fed stands up to this pressure. But there are worrying signs of a misguided monetary mentality within the Federal Reserve system itself.
In recent weeks there have been a number of statements from Fed officials, mainly but not only presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks, calling for an early return to tighter money, including higher interest rates. Now, people in the Federal Reserve system are normally extremely circumspect when making statements about future monetary policy, so as not to step on the efforts of the Fed’s Open Market Committee, which actually sets those rates, to shape expectations. So it’s extraordinary to see all these officials suddenly breaking the implicit rules, in effect lecturing the Open Market Committee about what it should do.
What’s even more extraordinary, however, is the idea that raising rates would make sense any time soon. After all, the unemployment rate is a horrifying 9.8 percent and still rising, while inflation is running well belowthe Fed’s long-term target. This suggests that the Fed should be in no hurry to tighten — in fact, standard policy rules of thumb suggest that interest rates should be left on hold for the next two years or more, or until the unemployment rate has fallen to around 7 percent.
Yet some Fed officials want to pull the trigger on rates much sooner. To avoid a “Great Inflation,” says Charles Plosser of the Philadelphia Fed, “we will need to act well before unemployment rates and other measures of resource utilization have returned to acceptable levels.” Jeffrey Lacker of the Richmond Fed says that rates may need to rise even if “the unemployment rate hasn’t started falling yet.”
I don’t know what analysis lies behind these itchy trigger fingers. But it probably isn’t about analysis, anyway — it’s about mentality, the sense that central banks are supposed to act tough, not provide easy credit.
And it’s crucial that we don’t let this mentality guide policy. We do seem to have avoided a second Great Depression. But giving in to a modern version of our grandfathers’ prejudices would be a very good way to ensure the next worst thing: a prolonged era of sluggish growth and very high unemployment.

SmarterthanYou
10-14-2009, 04:18 PM
Misguided Monetary Mentalities - by Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman
well, we know how special those nobel prizes are now, don't we?

FUCK THE POLICE
10-14-2009, 04:20 PM
well, we know how special those nobel prizes are now, don't we?

In the sciences? Very.

Hermes Thoth
10-14-2009, 06:10 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Misguided Monetary Mentalities

By PAUL KRUGMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: October 11, 2009
One lesson from the Great Depression is that you should never underestimate the destructive power of bad ideas. And some of the bad ideas that helped cause the Depression have, alas, proved all too durable: in modified form, they continue to influence economic debate today.


What ideas am I talking about? The economic historian Peter Temin has argued that a key cause of the Depression was what he calls the “gold-standard mentality.” By this he means not just belief in the sacred importance of maintaining the gold value of one’s currency, but a set of associated attitudes: obsessive fear of inflation even in the face of deflation; opposition to easy credit, even when the economy desperately needs it, on the grounds that it would be somehow corrupting; assertions that even if the government can create jobs it shouldn’t, because this would only be an “artificial” recovery.
In the early 1930s this mentality led governments to raise interest rates and slash spending, despite mass unemployment, in an attempt to defend their gold reserves. And even when countries went off gold, the prevailing mentality made them reluctant to cut rates and create jobs.
But we’re past all that now. Or are we?
America isn’t about to go back on the gold standard. But a modern version of the gold standard mentality is nonetheless exerting a growing influence on our economic discourse. And this new version of a bad old idea could undermine our chances for full recovery.
Consider first the current uproar over the declining international value of the dollar.
The truth is that the falling dollar is good news. For one thing, it’s mainly the result of rising confidence: the dollar rose at the height of the financial crisis as panicked investors sought safe haven in America, and it’s falling again now that the fear is subsiding. And a lower dollar is good for U.S. exporters, helping us make the transition away from huge trade deficits to a more sustainable international position.
But if you get your opinions from, say, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, you’re told that the falling dollar is a terrible thing, a sign that the world is losing faith in America (and especially, of course, in President Obama). Something, you believe, must be done to stop the dollar’s slide. And in practice the dollar’s decline has become a stick with which conservative members of Congress beat the Federal Reserve, pressuring the Fed to scale back its efforts to support the economy.
We can only hope that the Fed stands up to this pressure. But there are worrying signs of a misguided monetary mentality within the Federal Reserve system itself.
In recent weeks there have been a number of statements from Fed officials, mainly but not only presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks, calling for an early return to tighter money, including higher interest rates. Now, people in the Federal Reserve system are normally extremely circumspect when making statements about future monetary policy, so as not to step on the efforts of the Fed’s Open Market Committee, which actually sets those rates, to shape expectations. So it’s extraordinary to see all these officials suddenly breaking the implicit rules, in effect lecturing the Open Market Committee about what it should do.
What’s even more extraordinary, however, is the idea that raising rates would make sense any time soon. After all, the unemployment rate is a horrifying 9.8 percent and still rising, while inflation is running well belowthe Fed’s long-term target. This suggests that the Fed should be in no hurry to tighten — in fact, standard policy rules of thumb suggest that interest rates should be left on hold for the next two years or more, or until the unemployment rate has fallen to around 7 percent.
Yet some Fed officials want to pull the trigger on rates much sooner. To avoid a “Great Inflation,” says Charles Plosser of the Philadelphia Fed, “we will need to act well before unemployment rates and other measures of resource utilization have returned to acceptable levels.” Jeffrey Lacker of the Richmond Fed says that rates may need to rise even if “the unemployment rate hasn’t started falling yet.”
I don’t know what analysis lies behind these itchy trigger fingers. But it probably isn’t about analysis, anyway — it’s about mentality, the sense that central banks are supposed to act tough, not provide easy credit.
And it’s crucial that we don’t let this mentality guide policy. We do seem to have avoided a second Great Depression. But giving in to a modern version of our grandfathers’ prejudices would be a very good way to ensure the next worst thing: a prolonged era of sluggish growth and very high unemployment.

Totally wrong. The depression was caused by rampant speculation and buying on margin with fiat currency.

this article is 100% propaganda.

ib1yysguy
10-15-2009, 02:38 AM
Totally wrong. The depression was caused by rampant speculation and buying on margin with fiat currency.

this article is 100% propaganda.

Where's your nobel prize?

Lowaicue
10-15-2009, 03:02 AM
Totally wrong. The depression was caused by rampant speculation and buying on margin with fiat currency.

this article is 100% propaganda.

Its all cyclical. The depression was always coming. Like a meteor towards the earth. What went wrong was that there were too many people trying to squeeze the last buck before it hit and too few people who dared criticise the lack of regulations, and the de regulation, of the greed machine.
When it hit, (very much in hindsight now) headless chickens were to be seen careering round trying to put into practice back-of-envelope solutions to save the world.
What the world realised, too late, was that Flash Gordon and Superman were fictional characters.
Injection of government money has been known to work in the past and was certain to improve matters in the short term but there was neither the time, the foresight nor the expertise to administer a certain permanent cure. If we do get that cure, and it looks as if we are all coming out (and hoping its not a W recovery) it will be as much by good luck a by good judgement.
And now JPM are giving a whopping GBP20,000,000 in bonuses!!!
One result of the upturn, which you might see around Christmas, is that Chinese manufactured goods will be more expensive and new manufacturing countries will start appearing on product labels. That should make you feel much better!

PostmodernProphet
10-15-2009, 06:21 AM
wait....perhaps we need to reexamine this in light of new information....did Krugman win his Nobel Prize because he wasn't somebody?.......

Lowaicue
10-15-2009, 07:18 AM
wait....perhaps we need to reexamine this in light of new information....did Krugman win his Nobel Prize because he wasn't somebody?.......

Apart from a few chosen men, who knows why anyone deserves a Nobel prize? We are told that Mr Xs book was a work of literary genius but are we in a position to 'know' that? We are told that Mrs. Ys research into cancer is worthy of the prize but how do we know she was alone in her discovery and how do we know the significance of her discovery? So, should Krugman have won the prize? Ask the committee. (There are, of course, obvious examples of deserving winners)
I only know that the likelihood of my winning the lottery and being struck by lightening at the moment I receive the cheque is more likely than my winning a Nobel prize. But then, you knew that, didn't you?

Minister of Truth
10-15-2009, 10:57 PM
Totally wrong. The depression was caused by rampant speculation and buying on margin with fiat currency.

this article is 100% propaganda.

Uh, you do realize that our currency was back by gold back then, right?

FUCK THE POLICE
10-16-2009, 04:39 AM
LOL

Minister of Truth
10-17-2009, 01:09 PM
Where's your nobel prize?

Asshate's prize is in biology for the volumes of sperm he has purportedly jizzed onto everyone's faces on this site alone...

belme1201
10-19-2009, 03:10 PM
Totally wrong. The depression was caused by rampant speculation and buying on margin with fiat currency.

this article is 100% propaganda.


The Stock Market caused the Depression?
No prize for you!

Minister of Truth
10-19-2009, 09:13 PM
The Stock Market caused the Depression?
No prize for you!

The same problems that caused the Depression also tended to cause the massive recession of 1920-21. The difference is the government reaction to it (Harding vs. Hoover), and the quickness of recovery (1920-23 vs. 1929-50).

Lowaicue
10-19-2009, 10:05 PM
The same problems that caused the Depression also tended to cause the massive recession of 1920-21. The difference is the government reaction to it (Harding vs. Hoover), and the quickness of recovery (1920-23 vs. 1929-50).

and the US recovery is slower than that of most other countries.


any ideas why???


Well THINK then.

Minister of Truth
10-20-2009, 08:12 PM
and the US recovery is slower than that of most other countries.


any ideas why???


Well THINK then.

You think. Leftist econimists have never been able to explain the thumping success that the Harding years saw in turning around the US economy of 1920-21. It doesn't compute with their worldview.

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 08:53 PM
You think. Leftist econimists have never been able to explain the thumping success that the Harding years saw in turning around the US economy of 1920-21. It doesn't compute with their worldview.

I have thunk. There is no single answer but in a system where you get a new president every four years and three of those years are electioneering there is little opportunity for considered thought. Sometimes what we call democracy isn't. And sometimes, even when it is, it shouldn't be.
National economies are just that, national, and there must be either consensus (which you will never have) or a non democratic government (which you will never have).
Then you have to remember what it was that made you the greatest economy in the world and realise what it is about your national character that has screwed that up. Look at nations that are coming out of the recession before you. Look at economies that are thriving.
If you prefer your own system then live with it and stop complaining. And, for chrissakes, ditch the idiots who will fight your present president over anything rather than try to understand.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-20-2009, 09:30 PM
The same problems that caused the Depression also tended to cause the massive recession of 1920-21. The difference is the government reaction to it (Harding vs. Hoover), and the quickness of recovery (1920-23 vs. 1929-50).

The 1921 recession was a minor post war recession like the recession of 1947. It was caused by a falloff of wartime demand. You can't compare it to the depression of 1929, or the modern recession (which is the closest parallel to the great depression). You also can't compare either to the inflationary recession of 1979.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-20-2009, 09:32 PM
and the US recovery is slower than that of most other countries.


any ideas why???


Well THINK then.

The US stimulus was actually small compared to most countries. China did one of the biggest economic stimulus's as compared to GDP that have ever been done - maybe the biggest ever. We had Republican senators cut out over 100 billion for no reason than to cut. I mean - it was stupid. If you are not going to accept economic reality, reject the stimulus. It's stupid to say that an economic stimulus is needed by agreeing to vote for one yet refuse to make it the appropriate size. And honestly, our economy needed a stimulus of about 400 billion more than the 800 billion the bill had before the cuts.

Hermes Thoth
10-21-2009, 04:36 PM
The US stimulus was actually small compared to most countries. China did one of the biggest economic stimulus's as compared to GDP that have ever been done - maybe the biggest ever. We had Republican senators cut out over 100 billion for no reason than to cut. I mean - it was stupid. If you are not going to accept economic reality, reject the stimulus. It's stupid to say that an economic stimulus is needed by agreeing to vote for one yet refuse to make it the appropriate size. And honestly, our economy needed a stimulus of about 400 billion more than the 800 billion the bill had before the cuts.

Actually. Saying no to some of the globalization idiocy would be the best stimulant around. Just taking care of our own needs would mean an increase in production of most items, plus there would be the added benefit of not having to depend on fascist enemies for our needs.

meme
10-21-2009, 04:55 PM
Krugman is another elitist COMMIE..with as we have now been shown the award going to the Hugo Obama, Al Bore and Yasser Arafat, a worthless Nobel prize..

Minister of Truth
10-21-2009, 07:32 PM
I have thunk. There is no single answer but in a system where you get a new president every four years and three of those years are electioneering there is little opportunity for considered thought. Sometimes what we call democracy isn't. And sometimes, even when it is, it shouldn't be.
National economies are just that, national, and there must be either consensus (which you will never have) or a non democratic government (which you will never have).
Then you have to remember what it was that made you the greatest economy in the world and realise what it is about your national character that has screwed that up. Look at nations that are coming out of the recession before you. Look at economies that are thriving.
If you prefer your own system then live with it and stop complaining. And, for chrissakes, ditch the idiots who will fight your present president over anything rather than try to understand.

I'm not a fan of democracy anyway, much preferring the system we created over here. People are too stupid to rule. I would also argue that in 1920 our presidents weren't stuck electioneering early the way they do now. That's a rather recent problem brought on by the rapid development of communication technologies.

Also, national character is difficult to maintain, or get back in a free society. Democratic principles do ultimately destroy themselves, as human vices tear down the system. I do not dispute any of this, and I am a huge critic of America's national character, which has consistently fallen prey to the evils of populism over the principles of republican virtue for eons.

That said, I support market liberalism because it represents some of the core liberties upon which America was founded, and because it leans toward freedom, whatever baggage it may carry.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-21-2009, 07:47 PM
Socialism is the only true freedom.

Repeal the constitution and start a socialist republic! The SPRSA!

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

FUCK THE POLICE
10-21-2009, 07:48 PM
Socialism is the only true freedom.

Repeal the constitution and start a socialist republic! The SPRSA!

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

Lowaicue
10-21-2009, 08:01 PM
I'm not a fan of democracy anyway, much preferring the system we created over here. People are too stupid to rule. I would also argue that in 1920 our presidents weren't stuck electioneering early the way they do now. That's a rather recent problem brought on by the rapid development of communication technologies.

Also, national character is difficult to maintain, or get back in a free society. Democratic principles do ultimately destroy themselves, as human vices tear down the system. I do not dispute any of this, and I am a huge critic of America's national character, which has consistently fallen prey to the evils of populism over the principles of republican virtue for eons.

That said, I support market liberalism because it represents some of the core liberties upon which America was founded, and because it leans toward freedom, whatever baggage it may carry.

Good answer. One of the reasons that China has been so successful (sorry to tub thump again), is that it doesn't have national elections. The job of governing has no externally imposed time limits. Beijing does not have to 'act now' to ensure election next year. The philosophy is one in which time is not an important factor but that the right time will surely come. Hence the attitude over Taiwan. Unity will come ... some time.
They had put their home economy second after exports for many years so when exports all but dried up the opportunity came to concentrate on the home market. With no democracy it was an easy transition.
We can't do that in the west. We are crowded out by naysayers and individualism and the ticking clock of the next election.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-21-2009, 08:08 PM
Good answer. One of the reasons that China has been so successful (sorry to tub thump again), is that it doesn't have national elections. The job of governing has no externally imposed time limits. Beijing does not have to 'act now' to ensure election next year. The philosophy is one in which time is not an important factor but that the right time will surely come. Hence the attitude over Taiwan. Unity will come ... some time.
They had put their home economy second after exports for many years so when exports all but dried up the opportunity came to concentrate on the home market. With no democracy it was an easy transition.
We can't do that in the west. We are crowded out by naysayers and individualism and the ticking clock of the next election.

Yeah, but when the government does something incredible stupid, who do you turn to?

The Great Leap forward. The cultural revolution. Both acts of unparalleled idiocy that could only happen in a situation in which everyone is too fearful to contradict something clearly and plainly stupid. The instability of democracy is the very foundation of its success. Undemocratic regimes have some advantages but they all crumble when ideological fools take over.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-21-2009, 08:09 PM
And is the modern situation in China worth those twin colossal failures? Certainly not. China would've been much better under a Democratic regime.

Lowaicue
10-21-2009, 08:24 PM
And is the modern situation in China worth those twin colossal failures? Certainly not. China would've been much better under a Democratic regime.

Believe me, China would have failed under a democratic system.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-21-2009, 08:27 PM
Believe me, China would have failed under a democratic system.

That's just Communist party propaganda.

Lowaicue
10-21-2009, 08:28 PM
That's just Communist party propaganda.

Nope. It is personal experience and knowledge.

Minister of Truth
10-21-2009, 09:55 PM
My real problem with other systems, and the reason why I support republican government, is that they exist merely to preserve established orders, and not to promote individual liberty. An autocracy could arise and promote good morals, which I would find admirable if said autocracy promoted my morals, such as a Catholic theocracy, but idealistic systems like this always break down as not everyone can agree on most things. An autocracy that exists merely to keep a flag flying, a people at large, or an ideology prevalent may just as well not exist, because its not defending anything worthwhile. Once the Roman Republic failed, why did it matter if Roman society was kept alive for another 500 years? It may just as well have died then and there.

Democracies, as demonstrated by the Greeks, and republics, as demonstrated by the Romans and by the subsequent city-states of Italy, will ultimately crumble. People will try to bend them to their twisted ways, and then as the national character deteriorates and the system becomes corrupted, it becomes a matter of time. But these two systems are the only ones which exist for a valid purpose, which is why they are worth defending.

belme1201
10-21-2009, 11:35 PM
You think. Leftist econimists have never been able to explain the thumping success that the Harding years saw in turning around the US economy of 1920-21. It doesn't compute with their worldview.

Harding served only from 1921 until he died in 1923.

Minister of Truth
10-22-2009, 12:58 AM
Harding served only from 1921 until he died in 1923.

Yes, and before he died, the economy took off like a rocket. Harding is routinely trashed by historians for being a passive, and not an activist, president, who liked to keep his hands out of other people's business, and not expanding the powers of the presidency. He also had several crooks in his administration, which resulted in the infamous Teapot Dome scandal in which minor participant, Albert Fall, was prosecuted, "taking the fall," as we say. The scandal pales in comparison to most presidential intrigue which has happened since, but people like to point to all of the "corruption" of the Harding administration as well. Harding was also popular with the ladies and may have had an illegitimate child.

Harding was certainly not the most intelligent man to hold the office, but he made up for it by following Washington's example of selecting intelligent men for cabinet positions and letting them do the heavy lifting while he set the tone and agenda. Like Washington, his most influential officer was his treasury secretary (Andrew Mellon).

Also of note, as one of his first acts as president, conservative Harding pardoned socialist Eugene V. Debbs, who was in prison for pissing off liberal Woodrow Wilson by opposing WWI and thus violating the Sedition Act. Debbs had run his usual presidential bid in 1920, but the twist is that he ran it from inside of prison! Harding thought he was wrongly imprisoned, whatever Debb's politics may have been, and set him free.

Hermes Thoth
10-22-2009, 07:44 AM
People are too stupid to rule..

Especially elitists.:good4u:

FUCK THE POLICE
10-22-2009, 11:04 AM
Yes, and before he died, the economy took off like a rocket. Harding is routinely trashed by historians for being a passive, and not an activist, president, who liked to keep his hands out of other people's business, and not expanding the powers of the presidency. p

If that were true they'd select Coolidge. Coolidge usually ranks in the bottom half, because people see his laissez-faire policies as proceeding the great depression, but Hoover gets most of the blame for actively refusing to do anything about it.

Harding was just incompetent at what he did. He appointed crooks on patronage and even admitted he didn't belong in the office. He also gave speeches which were pure nonsense, I mean, they had big words and all, the big words just didn't fit together. It's just like there's something wrong up there.

Harding may not have done the most harm, but he was the most incompetent while doing hardly any good, which is why he's such a popular choice forlast place. Presidents who did horrible things, like Roosevelte, usually did some very good things as well, and so there's a split in people who consider him horrible and good. Harding was just pretty much all bad.

Minister of Truth
10-24-2009, 02:44 PM
If that were true they'd select Coolidge. Coolidge usually ranks in the bottom half, because people see his laissez-faire policies as proceeding the great depression, but Hoover gets most of the blame for actively refusing to do anything about it.

Harding was just incompetent at what he did. He appointed crooks on patronage and even admitted he didn't belong in the office. He also gave speeches which were pure nonsense, I mean, they had big words and all, the big words just didn't fit together. It's just like there's something wrong up there.

Harding may not have done the most harm, but he was the most incompetent while doing hardly any good, which is why he's such a popular choice forlast place. Presidents who did horrible things, like Roosevelte, usually did some very good things as well, and so there's a split in people who consider him horrible and good. Harding was just pretty much all bad.

People give FDR a pass because of pure partisanship in many cases. I tend to give him a pass because of WWII, which is the other reason why people do it.

Hoover did not sit by like his predecessors would have and let the market correct itself. He fucked with the economy, and gave FDR many of his ideas for the New Deal. And yes, it is Coolidge who had the famous quote about his greatest accomplishment being "minding my own business," but it was a model that Harding followed also. Harding's inaugural address about how the market works and what he plans to do is actually quite good. There are some good Youtube bits showing Coolidge spouting off random nonsense, but I'm not sure about Harding aside from him being the one to coin the grammatically incorrect, "normalcy."

FUCK THE POLICE
10-24-2009, 04:30 PM
Hoover "fucking with the economy" is an Austrian myth. As soon as the depression started, he raised taxes and cut spending in order to balance the budget.

He started some public works like the Hoover dam but it wasn't much. The RTF was only started after he lost the election. Notably, FDR's stimulus really wasn't large enough either, which is the main reason the depression lasted so long, until the economy got some real stimulus in the form of WWII.

Minister of Truth
10-25-2009, 08:49 PM
Hoover "fucking with the economy" is an Austrian myth. As soon as the depression started, he raised taxes and cut spending in order to balance the budget.

He started some public works like the Hoover dam but it wasn't much. The RTF was only started after he lost the election. Notably, FDR's stimulus really wasn't large enough either, which is the main reason the depression lasted so long, until the economy got some real stimulus in the form of WWII.

The economy got good when the market recovered in 1950. Also, a lot of entrepreneurs like the Levitts (granted, I think housing developments are boring) popped up in the postwar, which worked out nicely.

FYI, the Austrians are correct, the Keynsians are evil.

Cancel 2018. 3
10-25-2009, 10:48 PM
Hoover "fucking with the economy" is an Austrian myth. As soon as the depression started, he raised taxes and cut spending in order to balance the budget.

He started some public works like the Hoover dam but it wasn't much. The RTF was only started after he lost the election. Notably, FDR's stimulus really wasn't large enough either, which is the main reason the depression lasted so long, until the economy got some real stimulus in the form of WWII.

ib1 says this doesn't matter

FUCK THE POLICE
10-26-2009, 03:51 PM
ib1 says this doesn't matter

It does matter, just not as much as preventing a recession. Hoover took the Austrian prescription and was rightly rewarded with 15 years of economic hardship.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-26-2009, 03:52 PM
The economy got good when the market recovered in 1950. Also, a lot of entrepreneurs like the Levitts (granted, I think housing developments are boring) popped up in the postwar, which worked out nicely.

FYI, the Austrians are correct, the Keynsians are evil.

It's safe to say that if we had taken the Austrian course we'd be in the dark ages right now.

Hermes Thoth
10-26-2009, 04:04 PM
It's safe to say that if we had taken the Austrian course we'd be in the dark ages right now.

No. we would have had reasonable sustained growth. And they wouldn't have been able to hide the devastation of the working class with inflated public stock numbers and expansive credit.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-28-2009, 06:18 PM
No. we would have had reasonable sustained growth. And they wouldn't have been able to hide the devastation of the working class with inflated public stock numbers and expansive credit.

The 50's was the greatest time for the working class in history.

Minister of Truth
10-28-2009, 11:30 PM
The 50's was the greatest time for the working class in history.

I guess the Taft-Hartley Act worked out for the best...

Lowaicue
10-29-2009, 01:37 AM
I guess the Taft-Hartley Act worked out for the best...

I guess it rather depends on where you are/were at the time. And, of course, how one defines the 'working class'. There are very few people who do not need to work and many of the traditional working class find themselves in the growing numbers of NOT working people. So blue collar, no collar, white collar, part time, casual or should it be rich and poor, tertiary educated or inadequately educated (if there is a difference).
In the UK it was the early 60s when, for the first time we came to our senses and told the 'aristocracy' exactly what they could do with their old school ties.
But some might say the galvanising time was the Civil War with Thatcher!

FUCK THE POLICE
10-29-2009, 03:14 PM
Margaret Thatcher should have been removed by the military. Conservatives have no right to rule any place anywhere. They have no right to vote, no right to speech, and no right to hold government office.

Minister of Truth
10-31-2009, 03:18 PM
Margaret Thatcher should have been removed by the military. Women have no right to rule any place anywhere. They have no right to vote, no right to speech, and no right to hold government office.

Zzzzzzzz

Minister of Truth
10-31-2009, 03:19 PM
I guess it rather depends on where you are/were at the time. And, of course, how one defines the 'working class'. There are very few people who do not need to work and many of the traditional working class find themselves in the growing numbers of NOT working people. So blue collar, no collar, white collar, part time, casual or should it be rich and poor, tertiary educated or inadequately educated (if there is a difference).
In the UK it was the early 60s when, for the first time we came to our senses and told the 'aristocracy' exactly what they could do with their old school ties.
But some might say the galvanising time was the Civil War with Thatcher!

I was being sarcastic to Watermark about his claim that the 1950's were a golden age for labor in the US. The decade began shortly after the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, so he must be all for legislation that is widely regarded as one of the most anti-labor acts of all-time...