I don't understand how "the little red school house is builded in the college." I get the point--the college is the large aggregation of wealth and the little red school house the good that supposedly results from it--but its literal meaning is unclear. "Builded" must be an archaic form of "built," but little red schoolhouses are not built on college campuses or by colleges.
 

Every time I read these descriptions of "liberals" and "conservatives" I'm reminded that contemporary "federalists" share the beliefs of historical "anti-federalists".

Not a perfect match but close enough. And I have a hard time thinking of the celebration of individualism, the"free" market and the vulgarity and desperate greed of the petty bourgeois as "conservative".


 

Post-1920 to that ill-fated day in 1929, there resulted the failure of an effort of conservatives to bring back their good old days of the "Gilded Age."

Who heard these words of Calvin Coolidge? Were there polls indicating approval/disapproval of his remarks? Keep in mind the immigrant movement in the 1910s-20s.

There probably are conservatives today (at least the Tea Partiers and other libertarian groups) nodding their heads at the quotes provided by Gerard. I'm not going to take the time to check the contexts of these quotes. Perhaps Gerard is considering a book on Silent Cal. If so, he might check Silent Cal on immigration. Fortunately for Silent Cal, immigrants could not vote. And perhaps Gerard may consider the roles of Pres. Harding and Pres. Coolidge on foreign policy during the Roaring Twenties that did not quite make it to the longed for "Gilded Age II" of conservatives.

And Gerard might address the appointments to the Supreme Court during the Roaring Twenties. Because Gerard may be working on a bio of Justice Sutherland, he surely is aware of Harding's appointment of Sutherland, who, it has been said (by Judge Learned Hand), was one of the 4 "mastiffs" on the Court that thwarted the New Deal of the mid 1930s at just about every turn. Judge Hand also is said to have referred to the same 4 Justices as "the Battalion of Death."

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Gerard's instituting a new comments policy at Concurring Opinions. Perhaps Gerard would like to extend it here in his admiration for Andrew Sullivan who makes a living from his blog. Imagine if I had emailed Gerard my comment preceding this paragraph. Would Gerard have responded by email? If so, might he have suggested some editing in order to publish it? I trust Jack Balkin is paying attention to this. If a poster at this Blog does not permit for comments, that's okay. But what Gerard is planning at Concurring Opinions is a form of censorship.
 

With respect, that's a ridiculous comment. That would have been my reply. A censor would delete your comment. Did that happen?
 

"but little red schoolhouses are not built on college campuses or by colleges."

Sure they are: Where do the teachers get their educations?
 

Thanks, Brett. That must be what he meant.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Coolidge was our last libertarian president back when thrift, self sufficiency and good business sense were archetypical Yankee characteristics.

Amity Shlaes just published an outstanding biography on "Silent Cal" entitled simply Coolidge. There are a great many "Yes!" moments to savor as we endure the second progressive depression since Coolidge left office.

Reagan had good reason for hanging Coolidge's portrait in his White House. Coolidge policies brought boom times and, if he had served a third term instead of giving way to the disastrous progressive Hoover, the Great Depression would have been over about as quickly as the largely unknown 1920 depression.

 

So, no tax breaks or loopholes for business, since no "act or resolve" will do the trick? Sounds reasonable.

Still, the government "cannot relieve" except when they do and "provides no substitute" but does "recognize distinguished [what?] merit." Self-support, except at times. It's a bit confusing.

The last part did scare me -- "service performed" sounded like the rich might have an obligation, but then, I saw that wealth itself is its own service. Relieved.
 

And if you're a thinking person, you read this and say to yourself: Coolidge was President from 1923 to 1929; what exactly did he do to prevent the greatest financial disaster ever to befall our country?
 

jpk:

Governments cannot prevent market corrections, they only make them worse. The Hoover/FDR responses to the 1929 market correction are textbooks examples of this truism.
 

These poll numbers are great news for John McCain!

MSNBC didn't televise the speech of a Hispanic or African American elected official or candidate at the RNC

Expect Rice to resign within the week and accept all responsibility to protect the President

The center right electorate still opposes Obama policy, which is why they will fire him on Tuesday

My well armed little mountain town has not had a shooting or any other type of serious violence in decades

 

jpk:

Serve red herring often?

You are of course welcome to offer a single instance of a government preventing a market correction to support your previous assertion.
 

The "red schoolhouse" phrase is a litmus test in itself. Conservatives think of mass education and culture as a gift from the educated elite. Progressives see elite culture as founded on the work and culture and education of the common people.

Bart: the Depression did not result from the stock market crash but from the subsequent implosion of the banking system. That's why Milton Friedman saw the Depression as primarily a failure of monetary policy, not fiscal. He did not see it, like Mellon, as a necessary purgation.
 

Gerard is proving that he is as thin-skinned as Frank. Gerard has made it clear that his posts, especially at Concurring Opinions, are used to promote his writings and to test ideas for new writings. Why Coolidge? Must be a new idea for a book.

As to the Judge Learned hand statements about the group including Justice Sutherland, if Gerard asks nicely I'll provide the cites, if he doesn't have them.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], tomorrow is the 84th anniversary of Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929. Hoover had succeeded Coolidge in March of that year, so the lead up was during the Coolidge years of the Roaring Twenties, as pointed out by jpk.

And Gerard, you can delete my earlier comment as well as this, it you wish and if you can. This was a dumb post by you.
 

James:

The US had previously experienced a series of market corrections and/or bank panics, but none had led to a collapse of GDP and a long term depression.

The Great Depression featured something new - the imposition of a progressively punitive tax system, tariffs leading to a trade war, a massive expansion of the regulatory state, and pro-union laws leading to widespread labor unrest and a sharp increase in the cost of labor on top of the financial crisis.

There was no reason for the 1929 stock market correction alone to cause any more than a one year recession. The Great Depression was caused by very bad government policy in reaction to that correction.
 

"A censor would delete your comment."

A "censor" works in various ways. The experiment to recall is that no comments would be allowed & then you decide what to include in a reply post (or something) via email communication.

Sort of sounds like "a form" of something defined as "suppression of speech," by your mileage might vary.

Shag's reply is something of a stream of consciousness.
 

Our SALADISTA's "one year" cure should consider that GOP Pres. Hoover served more than three (3) years after the Oct. 29, 1929 market crash and what did he and Congress accomplish, besides digging a deep hole for FDR? Yes, I realize that our SALADISTA minored in economics. but he looks back at Hayek through the wrong end of the the economic telescope. This is simply his simpletonian effort to blame liberals/progressives for the ills of both Harding and Coolidge, both GOPers. Even a smart guy like Hoover couldn't cope with their messes. Also, this is a not too subtle effort by our SALADISTA to blame Obama for the Bush/Cheney 2007-8 Great Recession. I wonder if liberals/progressives in Congress during Hoover's 3+ years after Black Monday tried to hinder Hoover's efforts to recover similar to the GOP and especially its Tea Party base did and continue to do in Congress to thwart growth.
 

Dear, dear Bart: zero credibility often?

Why yes, I believe you will.

Are you somehow unaware that the best thing you can do for your position is to avoid publicly supporting it?

Why yes I believe you are.

But don't despair: whenever a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect is needed, you can help! And that's something no one can take away from you.
 

Pres. Coolidge signed into law the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 that was aimed at limiting admissions of southern and eastern Europeans, including Jews. Perhaps past immigrants from those areas who became citizens did not vote for Republicans. Perhaps this confirms our SALADISTA's description of Coolidge as a libertarian to compare with current views on immigration. Maybe someone can find a quote by Coolidge on the Act and its results.
 

Shag:

Coolidge had nothing to do with the drafting of the Immigration Act and Congress passed it with a massive veto proof majority.

Coolidge was in the middle of a knock down drag out spending battle with Congress at the time using the veto freely and saw no reason to pick another fight he would lose. Coolidge signed the bill with a handwritten signing statement attacking the Japanese exclusion provision (which at the time was the controversial provision of the law, not anything to do with Eastern European Jews).
 

Coolidge continues Harding's isolationism overreaction post-Wilson. This continued not only through the Roaring Twenties but well into the 1930s as part of the conservative agenda.

So Coolidge did not write the Immigration Act of 1924. The anti-immigrant mood, tied in with isolationism, swept it through. Eastern and especially southern Europeans included many non-Jews, such as Italians, Greeks, Balkanites, Polish, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Romanian, etc. A major purpose of the Act was to provide greater limitations on immigrants from those sections of Europe. Since Coolidge, according to our SALADISTA , attacked the Japanese exclusion and not the eastern and southern European restrictions, perhaps it can be assumed that Coolidge approved the latter restrictions. Are current conservatives nodding in approval as the current immigration issue has resurfaced and fears of changing demographics?

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I thank jpk for the "diagnostic" Dunning-Kruger effect on display once again.
 

"ou are of course welcome to offer a single instance of a government preventing a market correction to support your previous assertion."

How about all the decades since the adoption of New Deal policies where we have not suffered a major economic calamity?

'he National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.[5] This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[7]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#Great_Depression_onward
 

Henry -

on "builded"

And Did Those Feet in Ancient Time

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.
William Blake
 

BD: "You are of course welcome to offer a single instance of a government preventing a market correction to support your previous assertion."

M: How about all the decades since the adoption of New Deal policies where we have not suffered a major economic calamity?

To start, the US private economy was in a depression (a recession without a full recovery) for over a decade after the New Deal went into effect. We did not have a full private sector recovery until after Bretton Woods removed the Hoover tariffs, Truman cut federal spending in half to balance the budget, and a new GOP Congress partially reversed the New Deal pro-union laws and dramatically lowered the effective income tax rates by raising deductions.

Please do not make the economically wrong and morally reprehensible argument that WWII created the private sector economic recovery. http://obamacrisis.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-myth-of-war-socialism/

Even then, we had a sharp recession about every 4 years through the 1950s until the Kennedy/Johnson tax reforms lowered the Roosevelt income tax rates.

Then we had a stagflation through the 70s because of a combination of a second massive expansion of the regulatory state, printing monopoly money, and the resulting inflation forcing individuals and businesses into higher tax bracket in our still progressively punitive income tax system.

It wasn't until Reagan substantially lowered and flattened the income tax code, substantially slowed the expansion of regulations, broke the union movement, and ended the easy money that the US finally had a generation of economic growth without any major recessions until 2008.

The claim in your link that the US suffered more frequent and deeper recessions before the New Deal is completely wrong. The economy and labor force grew exponentially through this period, including through the various market corrections and bank panics. The US went from a coastal colonial backwater to a continental super power second only to the British Empire in about a century. There is no close comparison in human history.
 

Why is it that our SALADISTA avoids the income/asset inequality gap starting with Reagan and escalating to date, with incomes for most failing to grow in real terms since Reagan? Yes, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, but the latter don't have fun. Our SALADISTA is in the latter group but apparently aspires to striking the mother lode in the Mile High State (of mind) with recreational Ganja to suppress the pain.

While the late 19th century Gilded Age was our SALADISTA's idea of the good old day, it seems the Roaring Twenties take 2nd place for him.

Our SALADISTA's economic anal-ysis is yet another display of the Dunning-Kruger effect. [Thanks again, jpk.].
 

You're welcome!

I can merely cite it, however. Those who demonstrate it give us fuller, richer, more compelling examples.
 

Shag:

Which was the more prosperous time for America - Coolidge's Roaring Twenties or either the Roosevelt or Obama depressions?

The fact that I have to repeatedly point out the obvious to jpk, Mista and yourself and your only response is to cite the Dunning-Kruger effect is perhaps the best example I can offer of that effect in real world operation.
 

Blankshot, no one gets slapped down more frequently, or in a more humiliating manner, than you.

These poll numbers are great news for John McCain!!!
 

the Roosevelt or Obama depressions?

Typical GOP dumbfuck. Drive the country off a cliff, then complain that the Democrat who was elected to clean up your mess isn't doing it fast enough.
 

BB: Drive the country off a cliff, then complain that the Democrat who was elected to clean up your mess isn't doing it fast enough.

America was in depression for the four Roosevelt terms and likely for the two Obama terms. How long does a progressive "clean up" take to start?
 

That probably depends on how badly the GOP president fucked things up, and you clowns are pretty accomplished at fucking things up.
 

BB:

:::chuckle:::

You are the perfect foil.

Thanks.
 

These poll numbers are great news for John McCain!!!

:::chuckle:::



 

Hoover couldn't vacuum up the messes of the Roaring Twenties and added to them. So FDR was presented with the Great Depression resulting from such messes, which did take years to emerge from, as conservatives and the Court took active steps to thwart recovery, especially with the failure in 1937 to provide more stimulus that, sadly, awaited WW II.

Our SALADISTA refers to Obama's "depression." Perhaps he can provide us with an economics definition that demonstrates that a depression followed the Bush/Cheney Great Recession of 2007-8 that once again left the messes of conservatives for a democrat, Obama, to clean up. Now I'm not an economist, nor do I play one on blogs such as this. Based upon my reading and observations just about every real economist concedes that the Great Recession ended, but full recovery and greater growth have been thwarted by the efforts of conservatives in Congress from day one of Obama's term to make him a one term President; these conservatives failed at that but thanks to the Constitution have limited Obama to a two term presidency. We all observed the recent efforts at government shutdown and attempts to attack the full faith and credit of America by conservatives, especially its Tea Party base. The goal of conservatives is to limit what government can do to create growth and improve the recovery. This strategy is somewhat like conservatives' efforts during the New Deal.

I was born in 1930 and knew of the Roaring Twenties from my parents. Things were tough financially for most during the Roaring Twenties. I can recall in the late 1930s financial improvements in my family's situation as my mother entered the workforce being built up as the war in Europe progressed. There was financial recovery as America prepared for war. Perhaps our SALADISTA's family told him different stories about the Roaring Twenties. Labor conditions weren't so hot in the Roaring Twenties, including long hours, low wages, etc. A lot of immigrants were not in the stock market that was basically unregulated. And let's not forget Tea Pot Dome and other Harding scandals. No wonder Cal was silent.

Let's look at the financial picture leading up to and through the Bush/Cheney Great Recession of 2007-8. What happened to the stock market (including 401(k)s) and the bursting of the housing bubble that caused many to lose their homes? Look at the stock market today. Look at the comeback of housing. Yes, America is more prosperous today than during the Roaring Twenties. Look at improvements in health, longevity, elimination/control of diseases, etc.

Considering our SALADISTA's legal DUI skills, perhaps the Roaring Twenties' bathtub gin has gotten to him. [Did I mention Prohibition?]

Our SALADISTA gives us this:

"Which was the more prosperous time for America - Coolidge's Roaring Twenties or either the Roosevelt or Obama depressions?"

I can't provide the link to jpk's "diagnostic", so for entertainment Google:

Dunning-Kruger effect

and reread our SALADISTA's comments for examples.

 

Well if I had to pick a favorite, it would be MSNBC didn't televise the speech of a Hispanic or African American elected official or candidate at the RNC

Although My well armed little mountain town has not had a shooting or any other type of serious violence in decades is a close second.

Well. So many. So wrong. Hard to choose.

But remember, Dunning-Kruger is not just mistakes, or blind spots. It is inability of the unskilled to recognize his mistakes. To go full Dunning-Kruger, you have to continually make mistakes and continually fail to recognize that they're mistakes.

So perhaps the best is really I am confident in everything I do and that is not going to change.
 

I sometimes wish I studied more economics, but not too often since economics, especially as practiced by partisans on the right, seems like a bunch of 'just so' stories where one looks back and whenever one finds good economic indicators credit them to any more libertarianish policies around at the time, and when one finds bad ones attribute them to any government policies around at the time. Here Bart tells us that the economy bettered when Truman cut the budget and unions were undercut, but when the economy did well in the 1960's during a time of sharp increases in government expenditures and a recovery of sorts for union membership and power we are told it was really the tax cuts that did it!
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

What messes of the Roaring Twenties?

The 1929 correction was 60% recovered by the beginning of 1930.

The Fed could have provided liquidity to the banks at the first sign of trouble in 1930 (as it did in fall 2008) and the banking panics would stopped in their tracks without the massive and unnecessary New Deal regulation of the financial sector. See Milton Friedman's work on the subject.

All the subsequent problems were self inflicted by the progressive government or by a world war over the next 15 years.

What messes of the Bush administration?

The government started directing and subsidizing the creation and growth of the subprime home mortgage market back in the mid-1990s. Bush had nothing to do with this policy.

The mass default of that market in 2007 and 2008 and the resulting recession were done by early 2009 before the first Obama policy went into effect.

As Team Obama correctly noted in a January 2009 white paper, if the government had done nothing, the normal business cycle would have fully recovered the economy by last year (probably sooner). (See p. 4 chart)

Instead, much like Hoover and FDR before them, Obama destroyed the recovery with progressive and socialist policies such as removing an additional $800 billion a year from the economy to spend on the unproductive in expanded individual and corporate welfare states and to spend on programs actively destroying economic and job growth like quintupling the pace of regulation and Obamacare's direction and distortion of the health insurance industry.

There have only been two capital strikes in US history where government made the business environment so toxic that businesses sat on cash and declined to invest in expansion and they occurred during the Roosevelt and Obama administrations.

Frankly, after the examples of two progressive depressions covering 20 of the past 80 years, I do not understand how any half-sentient person can still support these policies. Then again, I live in a reality-based world of cause and effect rather than a faith-based world of cults of personality and hopeless change.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

You live in a reality based world??

:::chuckle:::

A reality based world of unskewed polls, no doubt. I'll bet that Mitt Romney is president in your reality based world. Reality based, indeed....
 

'Bush had nothing to do with this policy.'

I would not say nothing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 

Mr. W:

Your NYT op-ed is a lame attempt to blame Bush after the fact for a policy which began years earlier and a housing bubble which started in 1997.

I really do not have the time to go through all of this yet again.

In Chapter 3 of my book, I give a detailed timeline of the lawsuits, legislation and regulations from 1993 to 1997 which set this table.

Gretchen Morgenson and Peter Wallison provide even more extensive indictments.

I would commend them all to your reading.
 

Bart

I am not arguing that administrations prior to Bush did not enact policies that pushed problematic housing business, just arguing that Bush did more than 'nothing' in that same vein. At the very least he did not contest these measures, and at the worst he championed them himself.
 

Our SALADISTA fails to provide his definition of what constitutes in economic terms a "depression" to measure what he has referred to as Obama's "depression." As I understand it, there are economic/financial data involved in determining what constitutes a "depression," or for that matter a "recession."

And our SALADISTA provides another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect with this:

"Then again, I live in a reality-based world of cause and effect rather than a faith-based world of cults of personality and hopeless change."

Yes, indeed, our SALADISTA is ready for a Fox reality show on those good old Roaring Twenties days.

And our SALADISTA with this:

"What messes of the Bush administration?"

demonstrates his short term memory losses.

 

Mista Whiskas as usual deserves a nice can of Fancy Feast. Nice kitty!

Get them in before the opening posts' November experiment of not allowing comments.
 

Joe's comment on the November 1st deadline was a reminder to comment on a recent post at Concurring Opinions by Gerard on the very recent NSA brouhaha about German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cel being snooped. But the post seems to have disappeared, or did I have a short term memory loss? (Or was it the NSA?) So I Googled and came up with this:

****
Concurring Opinions » “Yes, Prime Minister” on NSA Wiretapping of ...
www.concurringopinions.com/.../yes-prime-minister-on-nsa-wiretapping...‎
2 days ago - “Yes, Prime Minister” on NSA Wiretapping of Politicians. posted by Gerard Magliocca · 450px-big_ben-150x150111 THE PRIME MINISTER: I ...

****

So I clicked on the Google link and came up with a 404 Error notation.

Here's the comment I wanted to make before Gerard's November 1st deadline on what I thought was a humorous post by him:

News reports on Merkel's anger with reports of NSA snooping on her cel going back to 2002, before she was Chancellor, featured film of Pres. George W. Bush giving Merkel shoulder massages at a major summit of leaders. (Who can forget the look on Merkel's face when this happened?) As to Pres. Bush's motives for the massages, is it possible that NSA in advance of that summit provided intelligence to Pres. Bush that Merkel enjoys such massages? Might that be an explanation for Pres. Bush's actions? If so, perhaps Merkel might have been suspicious back then that her cel was being monitored.

Yes, intelligence can be dumb.
 

Shag:

As i noted above, a depression is a recession without a recovery. This is also known as an L-shaped recession.

 

The center right electorate still opposes Obama policy, which is why they will fire him on Tuesday
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

jpk:

I did indeed misunderestimate the number of people in November 2012 who actually believed Mr. Obama when, among other lies, he assured us that if we liked out private health insurance, we could keep it and save $2,500 a year to boot!

Voter psychology is definitely more difficult to fathom than economics or even the Obamacare statute.
 

Blankshot, you hilariously "misunderestimate" stuff all the time. That's why we're mocking you.
 

Our SALADISTA displays his affection (affectation?) for his hero Pres. George W. Bush's "misunderestimated" for which check out this link to the Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=misunderestimate
 

"misunderestimate" stuff all the time . . .

Yep; all the time, with boundless confidence, and no apparent ability to recognize he's doing it. See also Dunning-Kruger.

An excuse that it was someone else's fault he got it wrong is in no way inconsistent. In fact it's darn handy, a great way to avoid unpleasant reality.
 

I have always been thankful that Mr. Magliocca enabled comments to his always thought provoking posts. I have learned quite a bit from the 'back and forth' and from people like Joe highlighting law review articles to take a look at. I hope we can keep them open.
 

How bout them Sox!

Hey shag, you part of the Red Sox nation?
 

While Gerard may extend his paean to Silent Cal into book form that might be titled ""Rehabilitating Calvin Coolidge," our SALADISTA seems to be working on "Resuscitating Bush/Cheney." Of course, Cheney's got his book already out there and Alan Greenspan (who still speaks highly of the influence upon him of Ayn Rand) as well. The clue for our SALADISTA is his adoption of the "Obama depression," which if Googled will reveal the renowned historian Newt Gingrich's role as well as the usual suspects: Just re-identify all of the Bush/Cheney messes as Obama messes. So just throw "Obama depression" against the wall repetitively, hoping that its sticks. So far conservatives, Tea Partiers and other libertarians have failed. If only they could find a way to blame Obama for the not-to-be-found WMDs in Iraq that led to the deaths and injuries of so many our our military and so many Iraqis. Yes, our SALADISTA and his ilk use Cheneyesque torturous efforts to blame Obama for what Bush/Cheney wrought on America for 8 years ending with the Bush/Cheney 2007-8 Great Recession.

[In response to our bearded SALADISTA's question, No. I live within a mile of Fenway Park but closer to the old Braves Field where I was a member of the Knot Hole Gang and could watch baseball at more affordable prices than at Fenway. By the Bybee {expletives deleted], it was not well know in Boston back then (or even now) that Ted Williams was a Mexican-America and played right field before switching to the Green Monster in left, where the lefty Splinter thrived. A high school classmate of mine worked the scoreboards there and used to talk to the ballplayers between innings through the portals. As kids we used to hang out in Kenmore Square with its then several hotels to spot players on the visiting teams, catching some suffering from obvious hangovers. Yes, baseball used to be a game, a great game, despite Dave Egan's vileness towards Ted Williams.]
 

Before Gerard's paean to Silent Cal is archived at this Blog [Query: Why didn't Gerard cross post at his Concurring Opinions blog?], let me mention that those of us who grew up in the 1930s-40s in Boston's ethnic neighborhoods* were made aware of Gov. Calvin Coolidge and other yankees in their efforts to thwart Irish, Italian and other ethnic groups politically, sort of like the way conservatives, Tea Partiers and other libertarians challenge those changing demographics that haunt them today. So maybe Gerard can change directions on his efforts to make Silent Cal heroic; you're welcome.

*My neighborhood was primarily Irish American with a fair number of Italian Americans - I was neither - and we had a Jefferson Club quartered over a tavern that was most popular on Sundays when the tavern was closed.
 

Shag:

How on Earth is Gerard's post quoting Coolidge's paean to wealth a paean to Coolidge? Gerard very likely picked this quote because he thought it would neatly divide progressives and conservatives (or at least his conception of conservatives as worshippers of wealth), not because he personally agreed with it.

Actually, many in the Tea Party movement would be appalled by the quote. The Tea Party is a populist rebellion against not only big government, but also big business.
 

Our SALADISTA can read Gerard's mind? Perhaps our SALADISTA's mind-reading skills trump his earlier "confession" about his 2012 presidential election prediction:

"Voter psychology is definitely more difficult to fathom than economics or even the Obamacare statute."

Perhaps Gerard will let us know if our SALADISTA's' mind-reading should be added to such difficulties.

But what is amazing about our SALADISTA's "confession" is including economics as difficult as he is so positive on his negative economic views expressed in this thread; maybe what our SALADISTA lacks is sewing cause and effect in his buttoned-down mind.
 

Like Kathleen Sebelius before Congress, you did not answer the question.

How on Earth is Gerard's post quoting Coolidge's paean to wealth a paean to Coolidge?
 

We'll have to find out from Gerard whether his purpose with this post was to criticize or praise Silent Cal. But based upon his past postings at his Concurring Opinions, Gerard may be doing some market planning/research. But what's our SALADISTA's problem with a little paisan paean to wealth, something our SALADISTA practices even though like the Franklin Park Zoo snakes years ago he doesn't have a pit to hiss in.
 

Governments cannot prevent market corrections, they only make them worse.

I could go in a lot of different directions here, but I suppose I will go in this one. ANY economic claim that says that something "cannot" happen is likely, at best, oversimplified, and more likely full of shit.

The problem with a lot of pop economics on the conservative side (the people with actual brains like Greg Mankiew and the late Milton Friedman don't think this way-- I'm solely talking about the conservative rubes) is that they purport to think that complex economies can be explained with simple aphorisims such as "government can never prevent market corrections" or "under no circumstances can government spending be a stimulus" or "raising the minimum wage must cost jobs" or "the cost of a tax will always be passed to consumers".

The world is not simple. Government does lots of things in economic policy, some of it good and some of it bad. And anyone who assumes it is always bad is a complete idiot who should never comment about economics in public again.
 

Yep. And there are of course existence proofs of same.

 

Dilan:

Like jpk, you are free to offer one example of the government preventing a market correction, which is an overvalued market reverting to its proper worth.

Hell, I will even accept a reasonable theory on how a government can accomplish this. You are Herbert Hoover, the stock market has been increasing in value for nine straight years and, a month before Black Tuesday, you become convinced that the market is overvalued. How precisely do you stop the correction returning the market to its actual value?

I know progressives and socialists like to think that economic reality does not apply to them or their policies, but there are some basic iron rules of economics.

No employer will voluntarily pay an employee more than he or she can produce. When the government raises the cost of labor through a minimum wage, Obamacare, etc, beyond what a young or low skilled employee can produce, employers will not hire them.

The government taxing or borrowing your money and spending it will not create any more net economic growth than if you spent it yourself. Indeed, the overwhelming evidence is that, once you get beyond basics like security, the justice system and basic infrastructure, government spends money far less efficiently than you do and net economic growth decreases.

Etc, etc, etc.

When you boil it down, economics is really common sense.
 

Our SALADISTA's"

"When you boil it down, economics is really common sense."

even if true is a problem for our SALADISTA because of boiling problems at his altitudes with his Mile High State (of mind), but more so with his lack of basic common sense. He doesn't need no stinkin' mathematical model working with his Hayek abacus.
 

When you boil it down, economics is really common sense.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 4:01 PM

A skill that you do not appear to possess.

These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!
 

When you boil it down, economics is really common sense

Another one for the collection!


 

Bart:

Here are some examples of government actions that prevent market corrections:

1. Federal Reserve Open Market Operations. The pre-Fed era was one financial panic after another. Since the formation of the Federal Reserve, we've seen exactly one true panic (the Great Depression).

Further, central banks in other countries that operate independently and honestly the way the Fed generally does have far less panics and meltdowns than countries where central banks are weak. Which kind of indicates that yes, the intervention of central banks is a positive government policy that protects the markets.

2. Deposit insurance. This is so obvious. One of the things that made the Great Depression so severe was bank runs. They were also common in the 19th Century financial panics. Banks run on fractional reserve, and once the number of depositors demanding their money exceeds or threatens to exceed reserves, you get a run as everyone tries to get their money out before the bank collapses.

Since the enactment of the FDIC, we've had numerous bank failures but no financial panics resulting from them.

3. Supply side tax cuts. Yes, really, I said it. I don't like them very much for other reasons, but there's no doubt investors love them-- there were long market booms after they were enacted in the 1960's and the 1980's. Which means they probably prevented some market corrections.

More generally, think about what you are really claiming. You are claiming that all those investors who try to read the tea leaves of government policies and determine whether they are good or bad for the market are all wrong-- there's nothing the government can do that will prevent the inevitable correction. No professional investors believe that, yet you do? Who's wrong here, you or everyone who works on Wall Street?

No, Bart, economics is NOT simple. It's really complicated. Which is why there are hundreds of published papers refining economics knowledge every year.
 

Dilan: Here are some examples of government actions that prevent market corrections:

I very much appreciate your substantive responses rather than the snarks and attacks offered by others.

1. Federal Reserve Open Market Operations. The pre-Fed era was one financial panic after another. Since the formation of the Federal Reserve, we've seen exactly one true panic (the Great Depression).

I was discussing market corrections (overvalued markets falling to their true market price), which occur naturally and continuously. There are been eight substantial corrections since just 1989.

http://www.ciovaccocapital.com/sys-tmpl/stockmarketcorrections/

I agree with you, however, that the Federal Reserve has done a good job keeping the banking system liquid and thus limiting the bank failures which lead to runs on healthy banks and stock market drops even when the market is not overvalued.

2. Deposit insurance. This is so obvious. One of the things that made the Great Depression so severe was bank runs. They were also common in the 19th Century financial panics. Banks run on fractional reserve, and once the number of depositors demanding their money exceeds or threatens to exceed reserves, you get a run as everyone tries to get their money out before the bank collapses..

I believe the Fed plays a far larger role in stopping mass bank failures and thus runs on healthy banks.

Deposit insurance is meant reimburse depositors in failed banks. There is a very active debate about whether this simply subsidizes bad behavior by large banks. See for example:

http://www.positivemoney.org/2013/05/two-main-problems-with-deposit-insurance/

3. Supply side tax cuts. Yes, really, I said it. I don't like them very much for other reasons, but there's no doubt investors love them-- there were long market booms after they were enacted in the 1960's and the 1980's. Which means they probably prevented some market corrections.

This may surprise you, but I suspect that broadening and flattening the tax code leads to larger subsequent market corrections. Such tax reforms have always led to a jump in economic growth which in turn spurs rapid market growth. When markets grow rapidly, money comes in from the sidelines seeking a quick and easy profit and you rapidly get an overvalued market and eventually a substantial correction. See the Harding/Coolidge tax reforms followed by the 1929 correction (but not the 1930s dive caused by the bank runs) and the Reagan tax reforms followed by the 1987 correction.

 

So how have market corrections worked on the inequality income/asset gap that began to escalate with Reagan in 1981 and continuing to date? That's 32 years of widening the gap. Flattening the tax code flattened the middle class and fattened the 1%. Does common sense explain why this gap is good for the economy and for most Americans?

Oh, for the good old days of Harding/Coolidge.
 

It should be kept in mind that market corrections relate to stock/financial markets. Such corrections do not result from common sense, often from fear, panic; nor were the circumstances (exuberance) in such markets that resulted in the corrections based on common sense, often greed and some corruption. There is more to economics than these markets. Of course the word "correction" when modified by "market" loses much of its basic meaning: are the corrections actually correct, true, etc? These markets can be fickle.

And then there's the income/asset inequality gap referenced in my preceding comment. For truly common sense, Check out Paul Krugman's NYTimes column today about the poor, a significant portion on the short end of the gap. And read with care the Alf Landon quote in connection with the 1936 presidential election. (There's also a reference to Paul R-AYN and his hero Ayn Rand.)
 

Gerard has reposted at his Concurring Opinions blog "'Yes, Prime Minister' on NSA Wiretapping" with "Comments closed" under Gerard's experiment. It is a funny post.

Gerard states his reason for removal so as not to interfere with the "Silk Road" book discussion displaying his Wizard blog powers on "The Yellow Brick Road" closed off to comments. I wonder what this will do to traffic count, even as to posters who do not close comments.
 

Shag: So how have market corrections worked on the inequality income/asset gap that began to escalate with Reagan in 1981 and continuing to date?

The surest way to wealth is to start or invest in successful businesses, This accounts for most of the income/asset gap in a free market.

Market corrections are generally natural, frequent, healthy and are followed by later growth in the markets. Thus, the normal upward oscillation of market prices ads to income inequality unless the middle class invests consistently in the markets and reaps similar benefits.
 

Or you can invest in gold like Blankshot Bart did when Obama was re-elected. How is that working out for you, Blankshot?
 

Our SALADISTA continues his simpletonian views:

"The surest way to wealth is to start or invest in successful businesses, This accounts for most of the income/asset gap in a free market."

Of course there is no truly "free market." Many if not most of the poor do not have the means to "start or invest in a successful business." And studies show that most business startups fail. And investing in a "successful business" requires in the first place assets plus a tad of luck. The fact that the high end of the gap is limited to 1% or even less is sort of the proof of the difficulty for the vast majority. Winning the "vagina lottery" accounts for much of the success of that 1% or less, as has been pointed out by Warren Buffett. I wonder how that lottery has worked out for our SALADISTA with all his economic common sense?
 

Shag:

Prior to the Obama depression at least, Americans started businesses by the tens of thousands every year. Poor immigrants continuously start businesses. Indeed, the ubiquitous Indian, Pakistani and Korean shopkeepers are cliche today.

The fact that businesses come and go hardly means that business owners/investors did not make money off businesses while they existed, did not go on to form other businesses and did not become comparatively wealthy doing so.
 

Once again our SALADISTA throws in the "Obama depression" like a true devotee of Newt Gingrich, the Tea Party and the other libertarian ilk without any recognized economics basis. Our SALADISTA seems to suggest that prior to Obama's first term that began on Jan. 20, 2009, there were more startups than since on a pro rata basis. Of course, an adjustment would be required for the impact of the Bush/Cheney 2007-8 Great Recession on startups. But perhaps our SALADISTA can come up with some numbers to compare Bush/Cheney startups with Obama startups to defend his position.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], the income/asset inequality gap has continued under Obama as the conservations and their Tea Party base continue to thwart efforts to grow the economy.

There were a lot of startups and increasing successful investments during the period post-WW II to about 1980 when tax brackets for the wealthy were much higher than since 1981 with a relatively small income/asset inequality gap. Workers' wages have stagnated beginning in 1981 to date. Joseph Stiglitz, a real economist, has well described and documented this inequality gap and continues to do so.

As to poor immigrants, perhaps if conservatives, Tea Partiers and other libertarians were not so fearful of the current demographic changes, they might push for an immigration bill as suggested by Obama that just might improve and grow our economy with business startups that our SALADISTA has recognized as a benefit provided by immigrants.

And I don't know if our SALADISTA in his law practice has gotten involved with startups financed by venture capital, but the literature is quite strong on the few home runs and singles, with most failing financially. Yes, the vagina lottery helps these few successful entrepreneurs. Note that our SALADISTA avoids responding how the vagina lottery has fared for him. The inequality gap widens. Is that good for America?
 

I'm pretty sure that the vagina lottery left poor Blankshot behind. Fortunately, he was willing to go to Kuwait to kill a bunch of Iraqi cannon fodder, so the government subsidized the "education" that got him where he is today. Tax money "well" spent!
 

Shag: But perhaps our SALADISTA can come up with some numbers to compare Bush/Cheney startups with Obama startups to defend his position.

Certainly. The collapse of business startups during the Obama depression is well documented:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2-charts-that-show-the-very-heart-of-the-u-s-economy-is-in-trouble/

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], the income/asset inequality gap has continued under Obama as the conservations and their Tea Party base continue to thwart efforts to grow the economy.

The income/asset gap is expanding during the Obama depression because the Fed is feeding monopoly money into domestic and overseas stock markets, inflating both the market price and wealthy investor asset balance sheets.

Meanwhile, the collapse of the subprime home mortgage driven housing price bubble destroyed assets in primarily minority neighborhoods and the worst government imposed business environment since 1937 has killed GDP and job growth and expanded poverty.

Why anyone can think that progressives and socialists are fighting for the little guy is beyond comprehension.

 

Blankshot, there are obviously many, many things that are beyond your comprehension.
 

I enjoy this site for the informative posts. Yet when the Dooney-Burke theorem is repeated incessantly and trite name calling more appropriate Nicaraguarian food network consumes too many data bites the message is lost. If posters feel the need to reply in clichés I recommend the Yahoo forms.
 

Our SALADISTA's:

"Why anyone can think that progressives and socialists are fighting for the little guy is beyond comprehension."

suggests where he keeps, lessening the safety net.his head is as conservatives, Tea Partiers and other libertarians do comprehend depriving the poor of food stamps, etc.

As to the collapse of the subprime mortgage bubble, that occurred under the watch of Bush/Cheney and contributed to their 2007-8 Great Recession. And keep in mind former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan's contribution to that bubble collapse with his policies cheerleading the economy under Bush Cheney.
 

These poll numbers are great news for John McCain!
 

As much as I love that quote, that dumbass was even more confident in 2012 than he was in 2008. Just as wrong, but more confidently wrong.
 

In my preceding comment, this portion following the quote of our SALADISTA:

", lessening the safety net."

was intended to be inserted after "etc" at the end of that paragraph. My eyesight, alas, continues to be problematic but I can still see through our SALADISTA.
 

Check out Zoe Carpenter's 10/31/13 The Nation article "How States Taken Over by the GOP Have Been Quietly Screwing Over the American Worker" at:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176953/workers-under-attack-states#

The GOP at the federal level has been trying to do this but not so quietly. GOP congressmen think things are better with Koch - at least the money is for them; and then there's unwise ALEC.
 

The link on startups provided by our SALADISTA in a recent comment is an AEI report on a September 2012 report by Tim Kane. Kane's report is interesting but for a more current view, take a peek (actually more than a peek) at the 2013 Kauffman Foundation State of Entrepreneurship at:

http://www.growthology.org/growthology/policy/

A video is provided that runs just under 1 hour and 25 minutes that I found most interesting. The point is made that data are not fully available after 2010 but that the startup picture has turned positive. Of course, the statistics for 2009-10 reflect the Bush/Cheney Great Recession of 2007-8. The Jobs Act of last year is aimed at helping startups. The sky is not falling on startups and entrepreneurship. The panel discussion and Q & A is quite informative. I realize that the length of the video may discourage some from watching it but it has a "pause" feature for breaks.
 

Shag:

Kauffman as been massaging the Obama startup data for years by including all the laid off Americans who are now working as contractors rather than as employees. The majority of businesses in the US today under this measure do not employ workers.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443768804578036733731824190

I chose the AEI report which compares employment generated by new startups for a reason - economic recoveries are driven by small business hiring, which has cratered during the Obama depression.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162800/small-businesses-letting-workers-hiring.aspx
 

Is our SALADISTA so naive as to believe that AEI is objective? AEI has been a right wing tool for decades, including supportive of Bush/Cheney whose administration led to the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession. The AEI report our SALADISTA linked to is not based upon its own study; rather, it swallows the points made in the September 2012 published report by Tim Kane, yes, over a year ago. And Kane is not objective as he pushes the conservative line to this day.

To repeat from my earlier comment:

"The point is made that data are not fully available after 2010 but that the startup picture has turned positive. Of course, the statistics for 2009-10 reflect the Bush/Cheney Great Recession of 2007-8. The Jobs Act of last year is aimed at helping startups."

That was some deep hole Bush/Cheney left for Obama. But all our SALADISTA does is cherry-pick and swallow the pits. Now if only Congress would act on a bipartisan jobs bill before both houses.

I don't know if our SALADISTA watched the video, but it is apparent that he is not well versed in startups, SBA, SBIC, venture capital, angel investors and the relatively new crowdfunding created by the Jobs Act of last year. So the video may serve as a primer for him.
 

Bart. Google John Kasich "There seems to be a war on the poor"
In a second comment I repeat too often, the more fluff you add to arguments with idiots the more wiggle room you leave them. Use the record, use quotes and links and shut them down. Bart is a Burkean conservative, a libertarian fundamentalist, and a fascist, depending on the topic at hand. Try holding him to at least some level of consistency. Or just ignore him
 

Shag:

We are moving from the fifth to the sixth year of the Obama administration operating under progressive and socialist policies imposed in 2009 and 2010 and an income tax increase imposed in 2013. The President and his Democrat Senate have well defended these policies from reversal by the GOP House.

The result has been an economic depression.

Blame Bush expired years ago and even Obama rarely engages in this buck passing anymore because it does not pass the snicker test.

America has spent 20 of the last 80 years in progressive and now socialist economic depressions. Progressive and socialist nations across the world are in various stages of social and economic collapse. The idea that implementing more of the same policies will result in anything other than a deeper economic depression is the very definition of insanity.

Allow me to pose a deadly serious question to you:

How many more years of misery, poverty and government dependence are you willing to impose on other Americans before you admit these polices DO NOT WORK?
 

Bart's Orwellian, ahistorical commentary is frightening:

An economic implosion after years of GOP wet dream economic policies--a "correction".

Policies that demonstrably mitigated the impact of the economic implosion--the Obama depression.

With, of course, no concern given to the "emergency brake" applied to the economy in the way of austerity/spending cuts as imposed by Teabagger nihilists (all in an effort to make Obama a one term presidency).

He also ignores a major part of Keynes genius--namely, the recognition that business doesn't have to move in cycles--that what goes down, doesn't have to go up. But I'm sure he can tell us why he knows better or that he can find the libertarian/conservative underpinning to every positive economic development over the past 100+ years, despite all evidence to the contrary.
 

U: He also ignores a major part of Keynes genius--namely, the recognition that business doesn't have to move in cycles…

The progressive and socialist conceit is that a government technocrats could repeal the business cycle, supply and demand, then direct the economy better than business owners.

Keynes's grand strategy of government eliminating the business cycle by government raising taxes, lowering spending and paying down the government debt to slow down economic expansions and then lowering taxes, while increasing borrowing and spending to boost economic growth during recessions does not work in theory and has never worked in practice.

In theory, the idea that government can increase net economic growth by taking money out of the productive private economy through taxing and borrowing, taking a cut for its bureaucracy, and then spending it as the political class pleases on the non-productive under and unemployed through the individual and corporate welfare states is facially nonsensical.

Even if you assumed that the government could spend your money as efficiently as you can, the above theory is analogous to taking a bucket of water out of the deep end of a pool, spilling some of it outside the pool carrying it to the shallow end (the government's cut), dumping what is left of the water back into the pool and expecting the level of the pool to rise.

Under actual progressive governance, taxes and spending NEVER go down. Instead, progressives only cite to Keynes during recessions as an excuse to borrow to expand government even further in a sort of business cycle ratchet effect.
 

Bart. The communists are clueless. Thanks for words.
 

Hey a new one for the collection!

Under actual progressive governance, taxes and spending NEVER go down


total government spending as a share of potential GDP

 

jpk:

Relying on Krugman for your information will only make yourself look foolish.

Do you see how Krugman is gaming you with this chart?

I'll break it down for you if you want.
 

The center right electorate still opposes Obama policy, which is why they will fire him on Tuesday

Relying on Krugman for your information will only make yourself look foolish

When you boil it down, economics is really common sense

Under actual progressive governance, taxes and spending NEVER go down

My well armed little mountain town has not had a shooting or any other type of serious violence in decades

These poll numbers are great news for John McCain!

MSNBC didn't televise the speech of a Hispanic or African American elected official or candidate at the RNC

Expect Rice to resign within the week and accept all responsibility to protect the President

 

"Under actual progressive governance, taxes and spending NEVER go down."

Bart, this is an interesting point, but doesn't it follow that one could argue we can't blame any failures in practice on Keynes since his theory has, according to this, never 'really' been tried?

"Keynes's grand strategy of government eliminating the business cycle...does not work in theory and has never worked in practice."

I dunno, in practice it seems to be working...

"The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#Great_Depression_onward

 

Remember, Dunning-Kruger is not just making mistakes.

A key thing for Dunning-Kruger is the confidence of the unskilled that he's absolutely right.
 

Over at the Legal History Blog book review feature there is a link to a review of Richard Moe's "Roosevelt's Second Act" on FDR seeking a third term in 1940. Perhaps those tired of our SALADISTA's distortions of FDR and the New Deal might find this review interesting. The reviewer provides some current day comparisons, including on bipartisanship.
 

I haven't adjusted as yet to falling back to standard time. So I decided to look back in the archives of this Blog for posts about the time Obama was (or was not) inaugurated on January 20, 2009. Jack Balkin's January 21, 2009 post "Why Barack Obama Still Isn't President" popped up, with 211 comments. The first comment was by our SALADISTA, then known as "little Lisa's bro," and newbies as well as the usual suspects at this Blog may enjoy the banter on what was obviously a parody but required an Update by Jack. I miss Arne and Mourad and their comments. I hope they are well.
 

BD: Under actual progressive governance, taxes and spending NEVER go down

jpk: total government spending as a share of potential GDP

Krugman offered multiple variations of the data in your linked chart to "prove" that the federal spending had actually decreased under the sequester. This chart is dishonest on multiple levels:

1) Nominal spending increased every year even though spending as a percentage of GDP went up and down depending upon the GDP variable.

2) Even if I was discussing spending as a percentage of GDP, this chart uses "potential GDP" rather than actual GDP.

3) Krugman includes state spending cuts to offset the federal spending increases. That is what "total government spending" means.

Seriously, correcting Krugman's various lies and errors has become a cottage industry in the conservative media because it presents such a target rich environment. Caveat emptor.

 

The chart that jpk linked to was a FRED chart. Is our SALADISTA questioning FRED's chart or only Krugman's analysis? What does the chart say to our SALADISTA concerning changes noted on it? That conservative cottage industry is pretty cheesy. Perhaps our SALADISTA can provide links to established/experienced conservative economists with some renown that are part of that cottage industry. Or is our SALADISTA basing this challenge to Krugman upon his infamous Chapter 3?

This is all part and parcel of our SALADISTA's "OB(ama)SESSION" and Dunning-Kruger affliction.
 

Mr. W:

Wikipedia: "The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months."

NBER provides a .pdf listing the beginning and end of what they view as recessions without supporting data.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

I strongly suspect that NBER's pre-New Deal "recessions" are actually the historically reported periods of bank panics and tight credit, not consecutive quarters of falling GDP as recessions are defined today

For example, during the 50 year Industrial Revolution period from 1870-1920 when the economy exploded, NBER claims that the United States was in recession for nearly half of that period 23 years and 5 months.

The NBER's longest recession in American history was not the Great Depression, but rather a 65 month recession from 1873 to 1879.

That is nuts.

During the 50 year Industrial Revolution period from 1870-1920, average per capita income more than doubled as the population tripled, increasing total nominal economic output six-fold as we become the largest economy in the world.

http://rdc1.net/class/Odense/ushis11.pdf

If you remove inflation from the equation, you still have nearly uninterrupted real GDP growth from the founding to the Great Depression because inflation was not a problem in this country until the progressive era..

http://crawlingaxe.blogspot.com/2012/02/19th-century-vs-20th-century.html

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

I never said the data was wrong, but rather that Krugman was dishonestly and jpk was unwittingly using the wrong data to support their argument.
 

"he NBER's longest recession in American history was not the Great Depression, but rather a 65 month recession from 1873 to 1879.

That is nuts.

During the 50 year Industrial Revolution period from 1870-1920, average per capita income more than doubled as the population tripled, increasing total nominal economic output six-fold as we become the largest economy in the world."

Your second point ('During the 50 year Industrial Revolution period from 1870-1920, average per capita income more than doubled') does not necessarily refute the first (longest recession in American history was not the Great Depression, but rather a 65 month recession from 1873 to 1879), since you are comparing a 50 year period to supposedly refute what happened in a seven year part of that period.

Could it be that the 'Long Depression,' occurring in that most Gilded of Ages of laissez-faire government, is quite the inconvenient truth for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

 

Mr. W:

Compare the mass population growth and ongoing GDP growth during the 1870s with the Great Depression during the 1930s. I provided the last two links for this purpose.

On a personal note, the German side of my family emigrated during the 1870s and prospered in PA.

The Italian side emigrated during yet another supposed recession in the early 1900s.
 

My well armed little mountain town has not had a shooting or any other type of serious violence in decades
 

Our SALADISTA seems to be suggesting that his forbears in America prospered despite recessions on their arrivals respectively in the 1870s (German) and the early 1900s (Italians). I wonder how the vagina lottery is faring for our SALADISTA during the Obama depression in his little mountain town.
 

We haven't heard from Sandy for a while. I was reminded by the Daily Kos Open thread "Is the U.S. Constitution obsolete?" which quotes Sandy briefly. A poll is provided for voting on this question. While I share many of Sandy's views on the subject, I have my druthers about what a constitutional convention might produce. The Kos post suggests that there are many good examples of provisions in foreign constitutions adopted with the benefit of experiences of our Constitution in action that could be used to improve it. But I'm not trusting that such a convention would bring about a just result. I assume such a convention would be open so we could all watch sausage being made probably over too long a period of time. While a closed convention might be more expedient, imagine the reactions of extremists with the Internet available. Also, there is the risk of NSA and leaks.

I'm not trying to prod Sandy into posting on this, as he must be quite busy organizing the upcoming program he put together on this subject; that's a full time job, as herding constitutional scholars can be like herding cats.
 

Dail Kos provided only an excerpt from Alex Seita-Wald's The Atlantic article (11/2/13) "The U.S. Needs a New Constitution --Here's How to Write It." The print version runs 7+ pages.
 

Shag:

Thanks for the article. Interesting constitutional stream of consciousness without the usual ax grinding.

Our political gridlock is far more the product of a fundamental divide amongst Americans as to the proper role of government, however, than any constitutional constipation. Indeed, given our political divide, how many of the proposed constitutional changes could gain supermajority support?

We last modified the Constitution when the confederate government of the time failed, the nation was facing sovereign and economic collapse, and a consensus for change was reached.

I suspect that the current progressive/socialist government and the economy will have to near collapse again before we reach the new consensus for constitutional change. I hope that consensus will be again for limited government and not an even worse species of tyranny than we already have.
 

I hope that consensus will be again for limited government
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:00 PM

Not including the part of government that drop bombs on the darker skinned savages, I assume? You seem to like that part of government to be pretty much unlimited.
 

Our SALADISTA's:

"We last modified the Constitution when the confederate government of the time failed, the nation was facing sovereign and economic collapse, and a consensus for change was reached."

doesn't describe how the consensus was reached because of the manner in which the Civil War Amendments were adopted under Article V, as the Confederacy's states joining the "consensus" was accomplished in an unusual manner. And these same states were able to thwart much of the Civil War Amendments shortly after they were adopted to thwart former slaves with statutes of the Jim Crow variety that were enhanced by the Supreme Court with Plessy v. Ferguson that continued with force until the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. Even after Brown, the former slave states fought tooth and nail to protect Jim Crow, despite the 1960s Civil Rights Acts.

The current situation is significantly different than back then. Consider that the Civil War Amendments were not adhered to for almost a century and even then the former slave states to this day, sometimes with the assistance of the Court, continue to challenge people of color in many ways.

The problem is with the Constitution. But the resolution of the problem is thwarted by the impact of the changing demographics that the former slave states fear. Limited government for the size of our nation compared to when the Constitution was adopted cannot function effectively with a minority of a minority attempting to shutdown government and breach America's full faith and credit.

Recently our SALADISTA seems to have adopted the Roaring Twenties as the good old days, whereas in the past he looked to the Gilded Age as the good old days. How were people of color treated during either of those good old days?

What is needed is effective government, which, as the article points out, is thwarted by the aging Constitution. Globalization is not going to go away. America would not be a world leader with limited government.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], consider that Nevada State elected official who, if his constituents wanted, would support bring back slavery.
 

Shag:

The Civil War Amendments did not change our constitutional form of government, they sought to outlaw slavery, enforce the Bill of Rights against the states and deal with some issues remaining after the Civil War.

The closest thing we have had to a fundamental change in our constitutional form of government since the ratification of the Constitution was the New Deal courts' erasure of multiple checks, balances and property rights from the Constitution through judicial review in order to accommodate the new progressive state. Apart from the 16th Amendment, though, none of this was accomplished through formal amendment of the Constitution like your article is proposing.
 

Bart, a minority rule a majority.
I'm not talking about the rich I'm talking about the House and Senate, and the number of voters and whom they've voted for. And Obama's done a lousy job at governing as the moderate Republican he is.

http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

You want to be a citizen in the most powerful state in the history of the world, while living in a small town and reading only the local paper.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/10/measuring-americas-decline-in-three-charts.html

It's your country.



 

I'll believe the Tea Party nihilists are in favor of "small" or "limited" government when they stop supporting bans on same sex marriage; stop creating unreasonable restrictions to abortions; stop advocating medically unnecessary/unwanted transvaginal ultrasounds; stop trying to limit a woman's access to contraception, etc.

And no, claiming these are decisions that belong to the states does not make it a small or limited gov't position.

I'd further add that I'll believe Tea Party nihilists are "constitutionalists" when they stop treating voting as a privilege as opposed to a right (as is clearly spelled out in the Constitution).
 

Bruce Ackerman, who is mentioned in the article, has written extensively on the New Deal's impact on the Constitution without utilizing Article V, and so have colleagues of his at Yale Law School. This was as a result of the inadequacies of the Constitution during a very severe problem that flowed from the Roaring Twenties of Republican Presidents Harding/Coolidge/Hoover. The 4 "mastiffs" on the Court, so dubbed by Judge Learned Hand, who also referred to this quartet as "the Battalion of Death" would thwart just about any action taken by FDR.''

Over at the Legal History Blog a link is provided to Richard Moe's "FDR's Second Act" about the 1940 election, a review well worth reading to better understand the times faced by FDR. I was 10 years of age at the time and had an awareness of those opposed to FDR, in particular Father Coughlin and his nasty little "newspaper."

Thomas Jefferson's words to Madison in the article really made the point on the dead hand of the Constitution. Consider that originalism started in the early 1980s with Ed Meese and his attack on the Warren Court. Surely Brown v. Bd.of Educ. stuck in the craw of many conservatives. But today Brown is not directly attacked. In fact, some originalists to this day jump through hoops in efforts to demonstrate that Brown is in accord with originalism. But deep down, Brown is what drives conservatives, especially with the changing demographics. So I understand why our SALADISTA looks to the Gilded Age and Roaring Twenties as the good old days of the Republic.
 

Bart

Out of curiousness, what criteria do you use to define a recession and a depression?

 

Mr. W:

A recession is two straight quarters of shrinking GDP.

A depression is a recession without a standard business cycle recovery. This is also known as an L-shaped recession.
 

Mista W, here's a clue from Wikipedia:

****

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.[20]

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

***

Our SALADISTA's "depression" is a result of his "OB[ama]SESSION. Maybe it's time to call in all the King's horses and all the King's men.


 

Bart,

Thanks. If that is your criteria, then how can we be in a current recession or depression. While it appears GDP fell 2008-9 it has been steadily increasing since.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2013USb_15s2li011mcn__US_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History

 

Ref:"How can liberals and conservatives be distinguished?"

I wish you had considered the current crop of liberals as compared to an earlier time...especially Obama. I do not consider Obama a liberal in any American sense of the word, for he is an outsider irregardless of where he may have been born. His background and education is not that of a so-called typical American and he cannot claim any part of what one may call the American heritage. His informative years molded him into what most Americans are not. His Marxist-Socialist views are unlike Ted Kennedy's or John Murtha's style of liberalism... but rather (more akin to) like the Islamic countries in which he is so found of...no, a liberal he is not!
 

Mr. W:

After the initial recession there is always GDP growth. During depressions, the growth is so low that it does not return the nation to the previous per capita GDP and labor force participation for years.

Our current depression is worse than the Great Depression in that millions of able bodied unemployed have been made welfare state dependents. likely will never rejoin the workforce and will remain a permanent drain on the private economy.

http://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/the-disappeared-ones/

Indeed, welfare state dependents of any type now outnumber the full time workers supporting them.

http://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/american-civilizations-tipping-point/

America has transitioned to an EU-style economic stagnation at the trough of a depression.

 

Our HUMPTY-DUMPTY economist (aka our SALADISTA) refers to the current economy as greater than the Great Depression. Perhaps his CO mountain community voted for secession. I assume he will let us know. Must be that recreational Ganja.

Eight (8) years of Bush/Cheney resulted in their 2007-8 Great Recession {from which we have recovered per Mista W's comment) with more to do for growth that the conservatives, in particular their Tea Party base, seek to thwart at every turn.
Twelve (12) years of Harding/Coolidge/Hoover in the Roaring Twenties and early '30s gave us the Great Depression. Conservatives thwarted FDR's efforts for growth, including with their isolationism, with WW II leading us out of the Great Depression with government spending.

We need government spending now (but not for wars), particularly for infrastructure. Conservatives thwart this with their efforts at government shutdown and violating the full faith and credit clause. [See Bruce Ackerman's Op-Ed in today's LATimes.]

So once again our HUMPTY-DUMPTY economist goes long with out of this world economic statements that fall off the wall.

As for our HUMPTY-DUMPTY economist's EU comparative, check out Paul Krraman's NYTimes blog posts today for more accurate views.
 

These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!

Ron Paul 2012
 

Shag:

Don't fret. You will be long gone when the US goes the way of the PIIGS countries (and by that time most of the rest of the EU and Japan) and an insolvent government slashes Social Security and Medicare because they have run other people's money in a depressed economy where government dependents outnumber the remaining folks with full time work supporting them.

I am sure the cohort of progressives and socialists who follow you will still insist that the resulting civilization collapse was the fault of the folks who tried to reverse it.
 

The center right electorate still opposes Obama policy, which is why they will fire him on Tuesday

Ron Paul 2012
 

Our HUMPTY-DUMPTY economist may not understand that as one ages, one doesn't fret (especially not over a guitar). I look back to the time of my birth (1930) and as I got older and studied history prior thereto to consider the progress that has been made over the years, two steps forward, one step back, but progress. In comparison, our HUMPTY-DUMPTY economist who is younger by several decades looks back vicariously to the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties for his jollies. [Recall Reagan's: "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," Ronald Reagan quipped during the 1984 presidential debates when asked if, at 73, he is too old to be President. [Credit to Wikipedia] Unlike Reagan, I will exploit the banalities of our HUMPTY-DUMPTY economist's youth and inexperience.]

No response on secession?


 

Bart,

In your initial response to me you pointed to GDP, now you are referring to GDP per capita and labor force participation. Those are not the same things, right?
 

Bart

Additionally, according to these figures the dip in GDP per capita in 2008 and 09 was more than made up for in 2010 and subsequent years. What do you make of that?
 

Mr. W:

Per capita GDP has not recovered.

http://jbresearchgoodtoknow.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/its-the-most-wonderful-time-of-the-year/united-states-gdp-per-capita/

Employment rises and falls with GDP.
 

Here's our HUMPTY-DUMPTY economist's latest economics wisdom:

"Employment rises and falls with GDP."

Take a look at GDP with the Bush/Cheney 2007-8 Great Recession and compare it with GDP that followed steps taken to stabilize the Great Recession

Since Obama's inauguration, conservatives have pushed for austerity:which lowers GDP and unemployment rises. Compare the EC with its Euro austerity following the Great Recession. Obama's stimulus was not enough because of efforts of GOP in Congress with its House Tea Party contingent to shutdown government, with the apparent goal of keeping GDP down and thus increasing unemployment. In 2012 voters rejected Romney/R-ayn and their austerity economic program. But the conservatives' efforts continue to keep GDP from growing. The EC may be a basket case compared to America, which has made a greater comeback from the Great Recession. Our HUMPTY-DUMPTY economist would lead us backwards in time to his good old days of the Gilded Age and The Roaring Twenties. Who will follow him?

"
 

Paul Krugman's NYTimes column (11/8/13) "The Mutilated Economy" provides a picture of the failures of focusing on debt fetish.
 

But Krugman's a "liar" and a "hack".
So just ask Bart (before he returns) to give us a list of countries who avoided this mess, or have come out of it better than we have. And what were their policies?
 

Top Ten Classified Website List, Pakistani Classified Sites, USA Classifieds, Indian Classifieds, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and every thing you want...
www.hotcurrentaffairs.com
 

Latest cars and vehicles, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange Vehicles, Nissan, Royce Corniche, Ford Concept Cars, Strange Vehicles, Mercedes and More Sport Cars and Vehicles with Pictures and Info
WorldLatestVehicles.blogspot.com
 

Latest cars and vehicles, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange VehiclesLOL Boosting Service  美服lol代练 Buy LOL Elo Boost

 

Just the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya