Amity Shlaes is A Right Wing Hack
The person who's the point person for the wingnuts on the "FDR's actions made the Great Depression worse" meme actually has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. (I know you're shocked!)
The former member of the Wall St. Journal's editorial board (a body known for free-market, fantasy-based editorials that openly contradict their reporters' own fact-based stories) is flogging her book on said topic, and says some pretty wacky things about how we should handle the Current Economic Unpleasantness:
What about spending? The Depression tells us that public works are probably less effective than improving the environment for entrepreneurs and new companies. The president has already put forward a big tax cut for lower earners. He might offer a commensurate one for higher earners. He might expand the tax advantages he is currently offering to companies -- wider expensing of losses, for example -- and make them permanent. A discussion that permits the word "trillion" might also include the possibility of bringing down U.S. corporate taxes, taxes on interest, dividend and capital gains -- again, permanently. The cash that a relatively competitive United States draws from abroad will move the country forward faster than any stimulus.
So the Depression and the New Deal are both worth going back to, but for different reasons than many suspect. We may rely on the best of the New Deal, the matter-of-fact bravery our parents and grandparents showed then, to help us through today's unexpected challenges. But we don't have to repeat New Deal stimulus experiments, because we know that they didn't work.
You can read the mandatory rebuttal from Paul "Unlike Right-Wing Hacks, I Actually Won A Nobel Prize for Economics" Krugman here (I know, it's silly and old-fashioned of me to think Krugman might actually know more about the subject matter):
Net stimulus of around 3 percent of GDP — not much, when you’ve got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have been more of a Keynesian if Keynesian economics had existed — The General Theory wasn’t published until 1936. Note in particular that in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the “responsible” thing and cut back — and that’s what led to the bad year in 1938, which to the WSJ crowd defines the New Deal.
Implications for Obama: be inspired by FDR, but don’t imitate him slavishly. In particular, your economic policy should be bolder, not more cautious.
He also addresses her directly:
When you hear claims that the New Deal made the depression worse, they often come directly or indirectly from the work of Amity Shlaes, whose misleading statistics have been widely disseminated on the right.
(Oh, and he kneecaps her here, too.)
Historian Eric Rauchway:
So on the numbers, the U.S. economy improved briskly during the New Deal. Things that are moving quickly and in the right direction, but still haven't reached their destination after a while, are things that have a long way to go—which is true of the U.S. economy recovering from 1932. Historians disagree on which part of the New Deal most encouraged economic growth, but at the least the New Deal did not prevent this recovery.
Shlaes makes a different argument about numbers, because she uses different numbers. She starts each chapter with a rat-a-tat of just-the-facts, but instead of GDP, which represents the overall economy, she quotes the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which represents the maybe 10 percent of Americans who owned stock. And though she quotes an unemployment number, she doesn't quote the figures I've just mentioned. Instead she chooses different estimates of unemployment that (she acknowledges) show a much larger share of Americans out of work during the New Deal.
If you want to know how the New Deal treated ordinary Americans, this choice really matters. Let's look at a figure Shlaes gives twice in her book and again in her Wall Street Journal editorial: She has unemployment at 20 percent in the 1937-38 recession. That's appalling—almost as bad as 23 percent in 1932. Based on such a statistic, you could think the New Deal wasn't alleviating the Great Depression. But that number hides something: A third of the people Shlaes counts as unemployed had a job that the New Deal gave them through its relief programs.
Now, you may say, wait: Those people really shouldn't count as employed—we're not interested in government make-work, we're interested in the real economy. Fair enough—and if you look again at Historical Statistics of the United States, you'll see another measure of unemployment—private, nonfarm unemployment—measuring the real, industrial economy. And on that measure, unemployment again runs markedly lower under Roosevelt than under Hoover. John Maynard Keynes might have explained that the New Deal wasn't just offering make-work, it was stimulating the economy—and Shlaes in fact at one point says the same: "[I]t functioned as Keynes ... hoped it would." Yet of all the possible ways to measure unemployment, Shlaes chooses the only way that hides the effect of New Deal relief programs and makes it look as though the economy performed as poorly under Roosevelt as under Hoover.
She's equally intellectually rigorous in the rest of her public statements:
The private sector is a better job creator than the public sector. The Internet was not created by executive order — it was private industry.
I mean, come on - that's one's so widely known, most reasonably bright high school students would know that the federal government actually created the basis of what is now known as the internet.
And finally, Ms. Shlaes puffs up her own academic credentials (she doesn't even know the definition of a recession)- because, you know, she's a right-wing hack pushing an agenda, and not someone who's learned to achieve within the academically-rigorous free market of ideas (you know, the one not propped up financially by free-market foundations). I'm not surprised to find out that she's an English major with no formal training in history or economics! I mean, neither do I - but I haven't set myself up as an economic expert, either.
Don't write her off, or ignore the possible impact she may have on the stimulus package. After all, you know how people believe what they see on the teevee, and she's all over the place in our fair-and-balanced media.
These wingnuts deserve no respect...
Go Figure: Republicans kick and scream about content of the economic stimulus bill. The Democrats weaken the bill to appease Republicans. The Republicans vote against it anyway, and then blame the democrats when it doesn't work. (huffingtonpost.com)
they are both wrong. There are too many factors involved in the economy right now, that were not when FDR brought about the New Deal.
Manufacturing? What manufacturing? Without it, the New Deal prob wouldn't have done anything positive. Now? Guess a New Deal might work for China, but not here.
There is one thing they could all do, that would bring back confidence, and create jobs after. Let bankrupt businesses go bankrupt. Short term pain, but long term gain. Create financial regulations, something lacking now for far too long. And actually spend on infastructure. Not condoms, or STD's or helping people to quit smoking.
Just because nations are tossing around large sums of money, doesn't mean it's being tossed in the right ways.
The New Deal was mostly about infrastructure. I know of no element that incorporated manufacturing. The WPA and CCC built bridges, parks and so forth that are still used today. And they are beautiful into the bargain, which the New Deal was for the country and its beleaguered citizens. There are statistics, damn statistics and lies and Ms. Shlaes is using the latter two to bolster her untenable position.
Yes. True. BUT something has to pick up the workers when the infastructure is done. In the 30's that was manufacturing. Even if every last nickel of the stimulus was spent on building bridges and roads, great. Then what???
Oh and by the way, there is massive agreement that the real thing that actually ended the depression was global war. Protectionism triggered it. Say, what is going on right now? Oh right, protectionism. One last point, how much of the Stimulating Bill is going on REAL INFASTRUCTURE? Very little. More is being used for tax cuts.
and electrification of the rural parts of the country, which had been previously passed over. See REA/RUS
See also TVA, RA, FSA PRRA, NIRA, PWA...
I could go on, but do I need to? None of these programs had anything to do with the manufacture of take-home goods.
It was about building infrastructure, getting and keeping people housed and fed and moved into a modern age.
I think FDR knew what any wise leader knows. If the majority of the populous is in dire straights, it won't take much for the country to sink like a stone. And he knew that making shit people could not afford to buy was not the answer. Had Roosevelt not moved to do the New Deal a program now reviled by neocons as socialism, there's no telling what would have happened here during the war. I'll bet there'd be no neocons around to bitch and moan about being held back, though.
Our country is faced with the same problem today. the majority of the populous is in dire straights. And while it doesn't seem that way know, get back to us in a year. The foundation has been laid.
me-oww!
Anybody who's in a "higher tax bracket" knows damn well they do not pay the same percentage of taxes as a lower income earner.
I've made six figures for 10 years now and never paid more than 20%, usually less.
And I can guarantee you, those multi-millionaires can get their taxes down to virtually nada.
I'm all for lower taxes, but for EVERYONE, not just those who can afford to avoid paying them.
Ms. Shlaes has previously been quoted as saying that during the fifties the burden of government was so heavy there was no innovation. She just blew off everything from frivolous tailfins, hula hoops, and rock & roll to the more serious earth satellites, integrated circuits and commercial computing. This chick is strictly flip city. That being said, it is true that during the thirties we were the rampant lion of manufacturing. We had the factories and the skilled workers and the reserves of materiel and all we lacked was confidence. This is not true today, mostly because Ms. Shlaes friend's have paid themselves to ship our manufacturing base overseas (Thank you very much!) She also conveniently neglects to mention that the last time the market in money was free was when Jimmy Carter let interest rates float to their market level. This was the key to stopping the devil of stagflation that had plagued Nixon and Ford. Since then the Republicans have successfully suppressed the interest rate as part of their monetarist approach in order to stimulate the economy.
A market where the interest rates on loans is artificially supressed is not a free market. If you hear someone spouting off about free market principles remind them that the market has never been free and the Republican approach to controlling it in their favor has caused this terrible situation. I wonder if they want to do away with the Highway Patrol and let everyone drive any which way they want to as well.
Based on the graduation with a 'C' average of His Imperial Chimpiness, we know Yale has slack standards for both admissions and graduating. Yale's just living off its old rep as an ivy league college. I guess if your Yale educated Nazi loving Grandpappy was a Yalie, you're instantly admitted and passed -- no class attendence necessary. And drinking, drugging, fucking and Skull and Crossbonesing -- de rigueur.
You aren't all that Shlaes, are you? You just think you are. Backing up that old worthless tosspot Phil Gramm calling people whiners because they have the temerity to bring up misdeeds done by their govt that FUBAR'd the economy? Was there NO whining at your house when your hubby had to close down his awful rag?
.
me-oww!
Hey! I resemble that statement. My dad graduated from Yale. He has a degree in Liberal Arts and he STILL way conservative (ouch, I know).
I can vouch for it. They are teaching them some weird stuff at those Ivy Leagues.
when they give a free pass to proven losers. Why anyone would hold Harvard [which gave the Chimp his MBA] or Yale, [which graduated him because of some huge endowment the Bushes stumped up] in any kind of esteem, is beyond me.
Your dad should get his money back. They robbed him. And I'd say there must've been some kind of discrimination going on there -- I mean, your dad probably had to go to class and study and shit, while the really obscenely wealthy kids don't even have to show up to school...
me-oww!
is a great subject that is pretty relevant to today. I really don't think that anyone who gives the numbers from that era an honest look can make the case that the New Deal didn't help at all. Of course it did. And yes, World War 2 played a huge role in restoring not just America's economy, but most of Europe's as well. The thing her that I think a lot of people overlook, is how much this country benefited from the New Deal in all sorts of ways.
A lot of State Parks and bridges roads were built during this time. Most of the projects that were built by the CCC and WPA are still around being used and enjoyed by millions of people. That stuff never counts in all of this analyzing, but this country has benefited from it tremendously.
I get so sick of people trying to tear down Roosevelt when he made a big impact in the lives of many people who were down on their luck and couldn't support their families. My Grandfather was in the CCC, and because of it he was able to support his family and help make this country a beautiful place.
What's left of the shrinking Repuke party is a bunch of whining, reichstag, angry "hacks". I'd say that Webster will soon add to their description of the GOP brand.
Republican = Reichwingnut fringe "hack"
The rest of america is moving on. These poor constipated Republiscum need some stool softener because it's impacting their brains.
Scumbag Millionaires - All Republican
Pretty much says it all. These scumbag millionaires have feathered their personal nests on the back of the american people, their children, and grandchildre. Every last one of them should be behind bars on felony charges of stealing from the people.
The simple, black and white world of wingnut nitwittery. Yes the market heals itself, the unregulated "masters" never game the system, and June Cleaver has the meatloaf on the table waiting as you pull up to the house. Morans...
Be careful what you hang your coat, his Nobel Prize was for his work on “analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.” NOT analysis of economic downturns. Krugman has yet to explain where the money is going to come from or how the bailout and stimulus are good, or why they will work. Krugman is frightfully vague in his points, start thinking for yourself.
I challenge you go back and read my post on Krugman and prove my points wrong.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/p...
I have already decimated Krugmans vague arguments, that should not be.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/p...
Read my posts, see what those I reference say, and prove them wrong. Prove me wrong, please come up with an argument that crushes mine. I really would like that.
Because the world has a few stiff questions for us too, and since they are the ones loaning us the money, we might want to pay attention.
World worries how U.S. will pay for stimulus
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/30/busine...
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
partisans find an "expert" that agrees with their opinions, they trot them out. Doesn't matter what party or ideal. My only thoughts are, if Krugman is so right (not saying he isn't), then why are there no other economist experts trotted out to agree with him? Why does he have to be the Dem face on everything including economices? They even trot him out to discuss Bush failures on everything. Are there no unbiased economists? I mean, at the end of the day, it all boils down to the Dem economist vs the Rep economist. Can't any of these people agree on anything? Does it always have to be partisan? I'm sorry, but when I hire workers in construction, I don't hire people that do everything exactly like I do. I hire people that have a brain and think for themselves. You don't see that anymore in politics. It's Dem vs Rep. Lib vs. Con....like hello people. This is a damn serious mess and all everyone wants to do is trot their "experts" out on television and chat about it, while nothing gets done.
I'll take Krugman's New Deal Economics to task with points made by other economists and investors who also saw this moment coming and have to date been far more correct than he.
Krugman sez
Krugman is either assuming or blowing by a few big differences between then and today.
Unemployment
Today unemployment figures are unreliable, when Clinton was in office they changed the way they counted unemployment. They simply stopped counting people who had not worked in over a year, the assumption now is if you haven’t worked in a year or more you simply don’t want to work. Clinton also changed how they looked at the CPI and have used hedonic adjustments to essentially lie to the US people about the state of the nation earning the title the CPLIE.
GDP = Grossly Padded Data
The GDP started out as the GNP (gross national product) during World War II, when it was used to measure wartime production capacity. It was never intended to be used as a measure of the country’s economic well-being, and its shortcomings are laughably numerous. Our GDP is over 70 percent consumption, which could collapse at any time because it is financed by debt and not supported by domestic production.
Krugman sez
The 40% Gold Exchange standard and the folly of fiat currency
In the thirties the US was on a 40% gold exchange standard, gold was valued at $35 dollars an ounce and the hording of gold was outlawed. Today we exist in a pure fiat currency system since Nixon detached us from the gold standard in 1971. Look at the US monetary base chart and note the massive exponential uptrend and subsequent parabolic rise started shortly after we were detached.
Base Money (1919 - November, 2008)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?s[1][id]=AMBNS
The world pegged to the dollar because we were pegged to gold. France correctly not believing we could pay off the Vietnam War started to empty our vaults of gold under the Bretton Woods agreement and Nixon severed their ability to redeem the money for physical gold. Gold serves two purposes, 1) it is a monetary base line, you can quantitatively discern the difference between price and value. 2) Gold effectively regulates interest rates. Today we have neither in the free floating pool of fiat currency. Of over 3800 fiat currencies that have existed in the world, the success rate of fiat currency is zero, not one has succeeded.
Preventing a correction from correcting?
Read ‘The Road to Serfdom’ Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. von Hayek of said recessions should not be resisted but embraced. They are necessary to correct conditions caused by the real problem, which is the artificial booms that precede them.
Foreign debt is the problem – Debt is the problem
The US’s deficit spending (a.k.a. incurring debt) requires the US to borrow more money, countries such as China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia have accepted the US dollar until now however that is not going to continue forever. China who has sterilized two trillion alone has been warning us for a while now and the world is waking up to the cold reality we can not pay back our debt.
World worries how U.S. will pay for stimulus
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/30/busine...
Find out who these people are and what they are saying
* Jim Rogers
* Marc Faber
* Max Keiser
* Michael Maloney
* Peter Schiff
* Robert Kiyosaki
* Richard Duncan
A few questions we need to ask
* How is a bailout is good?
* Where the money is going to come from?
* What country will loan us the money?
* How will a printing press will save us from disaster?
* How is spending money (call it investing in infrastructure if you must) we don't have going to help us out of severe debt?
* How is spending money we don't have going to begin to address $53 trillion in entitlement programs social security, Medicaid, Medicare, which are already insolvent going to help? What David Walker head comptroller of the GAO says is unsustainable.
Don’t take my for it, do some research learn these things for yourself.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
What do you mean by, "China who has sterilized two trillion alone"? What is sterilized money an what does sterilizing money do? Thanks
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Hi Truth_Critic, it means they are simply holding our dollars and doing nothing with them. We did this with gold in the 1920's and 1930's too to keep the dollar low so our exports were affordable to other countries.
If it sounds familiar it's because that is exactly what China is doing to remain strong in it's exports to us, only they are sitting on worthless paper, at least we had gold then. It's purpose is to halt the inflationary pressures.
If China were to dump those dollars back into the market it would add more liquidity than Ben would would want, it would show lack of faith in the US currency and the dollar would crash like an anvil.
The US is also mad at China for doing this because it has made it hard for us to export to China, now there is a huge imbalance of trade and payments and that is part of the problem.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
I'm just not sure of all the relative items that effect, our dollar or that of any other world currency? From a global perspective, isn't it basically in simplistic terms a way to exchange materials and services?
At some time, for consistency purposes, was it agreed globally, that all money be backed by gold, silver, rice or sea shells? What kinda stuff did the other nations use that we considered fair and equal value to our gold or silver and why not just stick to gold or silver to back the buck? Not enough gold? Not enough silver? So we had to use the two desirable commodities to match the amount of dollars we needed?
I'll stop there for now. :-) Though in ending...
So ya said we were sittin on the gold here back in 2o's and 30's just like they're sittin on our HP® printed paper dollars over there in China?
Am I safe to assume that at the time, the gold and silver was kept at primarily Fort Knox and any additional at the central and private banks? Whereas the Chinese are storing their/our monopoly® money in like locations, too include computers? Still have not figured out how some Father, Mother, Son or Daughter working in some slave shop is willing to take in trade, my $1 for their $1.23 or the like.
Who gets to say whats worth what? I'll give ya a snow cone for that pair of Nikes'® or I'll give ya this Prime rib for that fortune cookie. :-) Why shouldn't the whole transaction be fair? From the working conditions and rewards, too the commodities, and other assets expended to furnish said materials and services? Who the hell is setting the prices. :-/ Tanks again...
Study the symptoms not the virus...
There is much debate about all the relative items that effect our dollar, personally I’m listening to those who can explain with the best detail the implications of this moment. Krugman has been frightfully short on specifics; that surprises me. The people I mention along with Nouriel Roubini (forgot to mention) in my above post all saw and wrote about this years ahead of it happening. They have been far more specific in there projections (much already vindicated on) and where this is headed.
Two posts down I talk about the gold standard and our fiat dollar a little.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/amity-...
I’ll add here silver was the first metal coinage (Greece in 402 BC) and then gold later. It has survived the test of time as money because it was easy to make predictable weighted amounts and has had a perceived intrinsic value. For example, you could bury either gold or silver coins for 1000 years and they would still have perceived intrinsic value when you dug them up, probably more than when you buried them. Gold is uniquely non-corrosive and has few industrial uses which made it perfect as money. Companies may come and go, but precious metals will go on, that is why they are hedges to bad economic times and are used to preserve wealth.
The metals are universally recognized as international money. Only in the last 38 years have we thought of them as not being money, but all central banks do and proof is in the fact all central banks list them as reserve assets on their balance sheets. The US has roughly 8000 tons of gold in its vaults; last I read there are 123 vaults throughout the country however some of our gold is held in IMF vaults. India is interesting, the people buy more gold than anyone else in the world and an estimated 13,000 tons are held by the general population.
Most important our founding fathers having lived under the tyranny of King George knew the dangers of central banks and fiat currency. They expressly forbid notes of credit in the constitution and specifically gave the US treasury only the power to coin for reasons mentioned above. Under the constitution you can make your own gold and silver coins as legal tender because of the metals intrinsic value, today it’s counterfeiting. One of the biggest advantages to precious metals is they are honest money, not another mans debt, they can’t be shorted (meaning the physical metal in hand) or corrupted easily. It's all these fricken paper IOU's given slick investment names that are screwing us. Paper and electronic transactions are needed for convenience but they can are being manipulated to death, a Ponzi nut shell game on steroids.
Precious metals are not a debt of the people as is the current Federal Reserve Note, think about that. Our dollar is a debt to we the people! When the FED raises or lowers rates, it is the interst the banks pay on the dollars they take. We pay interest on every dollar ever printed to a central bank, today the creation of the dollar is matter of redeeming a treasury note and converting it to currency and loaning it to us the people. The FED is not even a government agency, it is a private company and has no oversight, it answers to no one. It’s largest holder today is JP Morgan Chase, the FED has never been audited and is tax exempt. WTF!?!?!?
Why were the banks scared and needed all this liquidity? Fractional reserve banking. The banks take in one dollar and can loan out ten * POOF * elf’n magic money, so if the people panicked and made a run on the banks to get their money, the banks wouldn’t have it. Fractional reserve banking is an exponential system that must grow to prosper, indeed survive it was not designed to retract in size. It requires that the succeeding generation is larger than the last. DOH! Cat’s out of the bag, the baby boomers are what have the government scared to death now, they are the largest generation ever, Gen X weighs in at 1/3 smaller the size of the baby boomers. Simply there are not enough people to support the retiring generation, more sellers than buyers, not enough people to keep the market growing for a generation. Because of this our economy cannot fully recover for a generation.
To make matters worse because the dollar has no intrinsic value and we pay interest on every dollar loaned Gen-X will have to carry the brunt of that load even more, we the people are penalized for saving, if the dollar isn’t moving its losing. Enter Greenspan and his f*ing grand experiment and getting all of us suckers to start thinking credit was the way to go, don’t save, live on the edge and work those credit cards at XX.XX% interest rates. Our very currency system was designed to rob the people of their wealth slowly and transfer it back to a few of the wealthiest. Now the gig is up and they are desperately trying make the illusion last. This is why Obama cannot fix the problem alone, he will not be able to stop the downturn because it should have been stopped when everyone was sucking on a fine drink and riding the gravy train up.
Well off to work, forgive any typos I just pounded this out over coffee this morning.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
But... please allow me too blame the software. :-)
Who said what happens in Vegas stays there? ;-)
I must review our commentary, but first...
Vegas...
"Precious metals are not a debt of the people as is the current Federal Reserve Note, think about that."
I've purchase some DVD's like "The Money Masters" > http://www.themoneymasters.com/ and "Money As Debt" > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050...
The way I see the system right now, I tend too believe the "Big fish" will eat the "small fish", at least until there is no more small fish and or not enough to fuel the big fish's appetite?
There is many, if and(s) or but(s). I read that banks are not allowed to go "Bankrupt"? So where do they go? We got that whole FDIC thing but that's just a component, I believe?
I'd like to see a theory that takes in the global situation and disseminates our future. Can we tweak our money system? Will there be fighting between all borrower(s), locally, nationally or globally? These are just some questions I have. Thanks to All for their time. (NOW THAT'S VALUABLE!) as many say... IMHO :-)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Yes the big will eat the small, the bailouts and stimulus packages though will likely prevent much of that. Japan tried what they are doing now and got zombie backs of the 90's. Handing incompetent companies money only puts a magnifying glass on their bad habits, they will do more of the same. $50 mil for a jet * COUGH *, case in point.
Yes their is good debt and bad debt, good debt that buys assets with a positive ROI will feed you, bad debt eats you. Personally I am placing money in commodities, agriculture, water treatment companies, anything where the base fundamentals have not been impaired. People will always need to eat, use soap, etc. These things will survive.
Real Estate will be great later but only after all the ARM loans flush, they don't stop falling until 2012. The good news is the bargain deals won't run away on you any time soon. We're not done dropping yet.
Tweak the money system? Lets hope! I'm not encouraged by our current direction. Even though were talking about an economy it's pretty simple, not much different than what you or I would have to do if we got in this pickle.
If debt got you into trouble, the solution isn't to go and create more to stimulate your economy, even if it's on office equipment to help you make more money. You tighten the belt, stop spending, cut the cards up, pay down the balances and find new ways to make more solid cash flow revenue.
We need a mechanism that prevents these trade imbalances between countries. If DC were serious about stimulating our economy they would get the banks to write down the principle on the homes people are upside down in to foreclosure levels, that is where the market price is currently. The amount of money they have thrown away is more than all the foreclosed mortgages many times over and we are still retracting. Now that's something to ponder
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
but a quick read of wikipedia indicates that there isn't enough gold to base even the US portion of world currency on it - seems like a non-starter. Coincidentally Krugman apparently wrote a anti-gold standard article that is widely circulated. Also it seems like a bad idea to base your currency on something that could fluctuate in price based on a independent variable. What happens when they figure out (and they will) how to use carbon (i.e. bucky balls, chains etc.) to eliminate the need for gold in electronics or alternatively we have a application where only gold can satisfy the need and the chinese go into overdrive like they did with other commodities - copper, oil, concrete and then the price spikes. The gold standard always seemed like an archaic notion like living in a Norman Rockwell painting but I am no expert.
We would not be able to go back on gold the way we once did, revaluating gold would cause issues too. Money is just an idea allowing us to exchange an accepted standardized medium of value to acquire goods and services. Without predictable value prices cannot be set on goods. That said we need some kind of mechanism to regulate interest rates and create a baseline of value to keep the politicians and big money people honest.
The problem with the dollar today is it is a floating pool of cash, price and value have been obscured because it backed only by the faith in our government. Every dollar printed is lent to people of the US with interest, when you hear the FED dropped or raised the interest rate they are referring to the interest rate the dollar is being lent to banks at.
The dollar itself is a debt to the US tax payer, gold and silver is no mans debt. It's why the founding fathers allowed debts to be paid with gold and silver and the treasury only had the power to coin. Notes of debt are strictly forbidden in the Constitution, the Federal Reserve Note, is exactly that and by definition unconstitutional.
We frequently hear inflation isn't rising, this is lie. The government uses stealth inflation (a.k.a printing dollars) and it highlights the difference between price and value. The Dow has only gone up in terms of dollars but contrasted against other asset classes it has dropped against commodities, agricultural products, oil, industrial metals, precious metals, etc.
The reality is the Dow has been crashing since early 1999, at that time you could sell one share of the Dow and buy 800 barrels of oil, the Dow has fallen almost 90% measured against oil since then, before the recent free fall you could sell one share and buy roughly 100 barrels of oil.
Since we are on a fiat currency there is no baseline to measure the value of the dollar as there was under the Breton Woods agreement. The only true way to know the worth of the dollar is to compare asset classes against others to know the true value of an item. The CPI is a lie with it's now shifting hedonic adjustments is nothing but a deceitful dog and pony show. John Williams exposed these shadow government statistics (www.shadowstats.com). More concerning is the fact the FED stopped publishing M3 data in 2006 (that is the big money), something they had done since 1959, gee what were they trying to hide then, a crash?
Krugman wrote an anti gold standard paper? LOL! There have been 3800 fiat currencies throughout history. NONE! Have survived. ALL DIED! The fiat dollars probability of survival is zero.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
nearly forever is also zero. Nothing is forever, including the civilisations that issued all the dead fiat currencies of which you speak. But many have gone on for ages.
me-oww!
Are you saying, this just may be, a matter of bad timing? GRRRrrrrrr..., just my luck. :-P
Study the symptoms not the virus...
who INVENTED crappy timing!
:D
me-oww!
In the 1920's Nikolai Kondratieff discovered roughly every 70 to 100 years there were major economic downturns. Stalin didn't like his timing either and had him killed so it was reported.
Check out the charts on this web page. Some people knew this was coming 20, 30, maybe even 40 years ago.
http://www.kwaves.com/kond_overview.htm
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
more so, some than others. Your digital descriptions ease my mind, even though it hurts. :-/
"I don't need 2 converse with a know-it-all, just allot of people, that I believe know!"
[Truth_Critic - Feb. 2009] :-P
Study the symptoms not the virus...
because he proved some people wrong? Many people don't like too be wrong!
Though I could be wrong? :-)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I recall hearing somewhere, in one of these tubes, the answer too that fine point you make. At the moment I can't recall, kinda like AG "Gonzo" :-) I must remember to start an Org. chart! Like a hard disk, my mind is somewhat fragmented and presumably it has many bad sectors. Talk about getting back too basics, "thanks again kitty"! :-)
Note to self: Must start Org. chart... Purchase a big piece of paper and lottsa pencils! :-/
Amended: Pencils with
erasers...Study the symptoms not the virus...
I would have expected conservatives especially to know that the old ARPAnet was originally intended to serve as a decentralized network that would remain in use in the event of nuclear war. All the other uses for it occurred to us after its establishment.
I've noticed a growing trend among conservative writers: a broad assumption that their audiences simply do not and will not fact-check a word they say. And they may well be right.
I guess the wingnut economic writers missed the information about World War 2 being the first large-scale application of Keynesian ideas?
Conservatives deny that the massive federal deficit spending of the New Deal helped to ameliorate the Great Depression in any way, yet they will readily admit that the FAR MORE massive deficit spending of WW2 ended the Great Depression.
A few LESS brain cells, and the conservative movement would still be up in the trees: whooping, screaming and throwing their own shit at the rest of us
The economy was good during WWII? Huh? There were ration books, price controls, wage controls, etc. The economy was total shit during WWII. It was only after the war had been over for a few years did the economy pick back up again, and that's just in the US, because a lot of the rest of the world was in ruins.
After a brief review, it makes one think. As an admirer of an old-time principle, often referred to by the name, "Occam's razor", that theorizes the following.
"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."
With that said, once mutually acknowledged facts become undeniable, you and I and or us and them, can be less or more capable of arriving at the truer answer. Of course that is dependent upon what one chooses to believe. Hence the word "denial". Complications are just a group of things, that need to be known and or recognized. Before they can be simplified and categorized and thus understood.
You explained the opposing views in your summation quite well. People need to put aside their biases, if just temporally and look at the simple facts, all being equal, a true picture may arise? Thanx Susie
"Well, some mathematics problems look simple, and you try them for a year or so, and then you try them for a hundred years, and it turns out that they're extremely hard to solve." [Andrew Wiles]
"The complex develops out of the simple."
[Colin Wilson]
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
[Albert Einstein]
PS: Please pardon my grammar, I left school in my 10th year, excluding kindergarten.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Yeah put this work next to Ayn Rand and your collection of fiction that purports to have something to say about real world economics.
She is a batshit crazy, rightwing nutjob whacko. Which means she will constantly be on the MSM spewing fourth ignorance like old faithful.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
with Cons since the '30's
According to Moore, the Conservative Manifesto’s ten points were as follows:
1. Immediate revision of taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits in order to free investment funds.
2. Reduced expenditures to achieve a balanced budget, and thus, to still fears deterring business expansion.
3. An end to coercion and violence in relations between capital and labor.
4. Opposition to “unnecessary” government competition with private enterprise.
5. Recognition that private investment and enterprise require a reasonable profit.
6. Safeguarding the collateral upon which credit rests.
7. Reduction of taxes, or if this proved impossible at the moment, firm assurance of no further increases.
8. Maintenance of state rights, home rule, and local self-government, except where proved definitely inadequate.
9. Economical and non-political relief to unemployed with maximum local responsibility. 10. Reliance upon the American form of government and the American system of enterprise.
"Conservative Manifesto of 1937"
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclope...
Those folks from 1937 seem kind of reasonable.
Case in point...
1. Immediate revision of taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits in order to free investment funds. (Modern conservatives would also call for an end the estate tax).
2. Reduced expenditures to achieve a balanced budget, and thus, to still fears deterring business expansion. (This would be scrapped. They no longer even pretend to care about balanced budgets. It's just spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow and claim that the Supply Side Fairy will wave her Magic Wand and make the deficits disappear - plus it's all the liberals fault, anyway).
3. An end to coercion and violence in relations between capital and labor. (Rewritten as 'An end to the coercion and violence caused by the labor unions.')
4. Opposition to “unnecessary” government competition with private enterprise. (Scrap the "unnecessary").
5. Recognition that private investment and enterprise require a reasonable profit. ('Reasonable.' Are we Communists? 'Reasonable' is what the Free Market says it is. In the 40s it was a disgrace to be a war profiteer. We are now living in the age of Blackwater.)
6. Safeguarding the collateral upon which credit rests. (The Gold Standard? Scrapped. Though Ron Paul fanatics continue the lonely crusade.)
7. Reduction of taxes, or if this proved impossible at the moment, firm assurance of no further increases. ('Or?' 'Or?' What's this all about? 'Impossible?' In what situation could it be 'impossible'? Modern conservatives can not conceive of a situation in which tax cuts could ever be irresponsible.)
8. Maintenance of state rights, home rule, and local self-government, except where proved definitely inadequate. (The dependent clause would be modified to 'except in matters of moral and family values.')
9. Economical and non-political relief to unemployed with maximum local responsibility. (Scrap that. It's now 'A thousand points of lights' and 'Faith based initiatives.' Meaning soup kitchens that will feed your starving kids after a little evangelizing.)
10. Reliance upon the American form of government and the American system of enterprise. (In the era of George W. Bush, this means 'Reliance upon a corrupt Imperial Presidency colluding with Crony Capitalists to loot the country.')
Again, I think the 1937 folks would be appalled at someone like Limbaugh, Tom DeLay or Grover Norquist.
I heard her back in Dec. on "To the Point":
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp081215...
As I listened to her, all I could think of was why in the heck is idiot on? She made no sense.
I saw her piece in the Washington Post this Sunday. I didn't read it, but I did enjoy the comments.
I would love to have an answer to this mystery. She's been thoroughly exposed as a liar, a dishonest hack, a paid shill always welcome in Phil Gramm's house. (That should tell you something right there)
So, the question remains: Who is the idiot at the waPo that allows her to even cross the front door?
On a related topic, this goes to indicate that the Right will not cooperate with our President, that they do not give a damn about the American People, and that their dearest dream is to convert this country into a true banana republic, like Peru or Guatemala.
For them, it is a cultural war that MUST be won, the facts being mere inconveniences.
If the New Deal programs (all the alphabet agencies) were so great, then why were they eventually scrapped?
Comments are closed on this entry