Balkinization: Cultural contradictions of capitalism II

Comments:

It is not only lawyers who are so socialized.

# posted by

byomtov : 9:44 PM

In plea bargaining, actual duress is present, because if you don’t agree to tha deal offered, the prosecutor has the power to render you worse off than if you had never met him, and that’s true even if you are ultimately acquitted. “The process is the punishment.”

In free market negotiations, there is no duress, because if you don’t accept the deal, you’re not rendered worse off, but are simply left as you are. “As you are” may not be to your liking,but other people have no obligation to provide you with an ideal life.

“Your money or your life!” vs “Your money or I leave you alone!”; The difference is substantial.

Sandy, please don’t go down the Marxist rabbit hole. It doesn’t lead anywhere a sensible, moral person wants to go. Only to madness and pain.

# posted by

Brett : 1:28 AM

When one party's 'as you are' is homeless and your kids starving and the other party's 'as you are' is they return to their yacht moored at their third, summer home then things are not as simple as all that.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:19 AM

This part II is a short post that I have been struggling to understand Sandy's point. Putting aside for purposes of this comment Ross Dou(b)that's [sick!] column, Sandy concludes with this complex sentence:

"The one thing we can be relatively certain about is that the judiciary will provide almost no help, since all American lawyers are socialized into a theory of contract that basically ignores, save, at most for a day, the problems of 'duress' or 'unconscionability' in favor of a model of arms-length bargaining and contractual freedom, as with, say, plea bargaining."

Is Sandy castigating the legal community? The judiciary? Who will provide the help needed? Or is this an attack on libertarianism freedom of contract? And does it relate to the surrogacy contract/arrangement in Dou(b)that's column?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:33 AM

Let's modify Brett's advice to Sandy in his closing paragraph at 1:28 AM directed at Donald Trump regarding his policy of ripping children from their parents:

"
"Donald, please don’t go down the racist rabbit hole. It doesn’t lead anywhere a sensible, moral person wants to go. Only to madness and pain."

Brett remains in obscene lockstep with Trump as one of Trump's Forgotten and it's chutzpah for Brett to advise Sandy where "a sensible, moral person wants to go" as his guru is neither a sensible or a moral person.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted, despite Gina], perhaps while Brett is in Germany he might visit Holocaust sites to learn first hand why neo-Nazis in America are amoral.

Furthermore, I get the sense that Brett's comment may reflect self-confession particularly on plea bargaining. I realize Brett is not an attorney and may not be aware that many successful white collar defense attorneys get really great plea bargaining results for their clients based upon the prosecution's evidence AND confidential statements from clients, knowing full well that prosecutors may have heavy trial schedules, and will give a "break" to defense counsel who may have been a prosecutor in his/her earlier legal career. Unfortunately the poor defendants, whether white or of color, do not have the funds to engage defense attorneys with such leverage.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:31 AM

I just scanned comments on Dou(b)that's column with interest. But I was more interested in the contractual arrangement the surrogate had made. The column provided a link to the article on the surrogate's lawsuit but I was unable to locate the documentation for the contractual arrangement. Did the document contain provisions that might evidence duress or unconscienability? Did the document require arbitration? Was the contractual arrangement violated by the Dads? While Sandy defers discussing his views on surrogacy, he does not focus on the merits of the surrogate's lawsuit. Perhaps the merits of the lawsuit should be discussed on this thread. Is there available a link to the contractual arrangement? While eyebrows may be raised at to surrogacy, there is the matter of her dignity, assuming her claim of certain commitments made to her. But Dou(b)that's goal seems to be an attack on feminism, while he gives "two cheers" to capitalism.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:09 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 9:10 AM

The "all lawyers" comment reminds me of a Nancy Leong (a law professor) tweet:

As a law professor, this captures one of many reasons I also tweet about politics, as well as the difficulty inherent in disentangling law and politics. “It’s legal” is often just the beginning of the analysis, not the end.

I think original comment a tad unfair. Lawyers have a range of understandings. As to RD, I'm not a fan of him personally, but would note that surrogacy goes back to biblical times as does something like use of wet nurses.

I am not too knowledgeable of such practices, but reasonable to think that a situation like e.g., Moses' mother serving as a wet nurse to the Pharaoh's daughter was not done for free. Where does such usage fit in the "libertarian-capitalist" divide, I wonder? There were surrogates in effect there too, again in practice I assume there was some financial involvement, if in a "pre-capitalist" way.

Again, not a fan of RD, in part since I don't think he fully understands various angles. Sandy Levinson might appreciate his anti-Trump side though. Anyway, the law can and does factor in duress etc. For instance, some simple minded sorts consider pregnancy a result of a simple "consensual" act (outside of "real rape") but others realize not, and the law is set up as such to factor in the various complications there & surrogacy contracts are but one area of the law regulated with that in mind.

# posted by

Joe : 9:14 AM

Some might be interested in this column written by someone who is well aware of the various nuances of the question:

https://verdict.justia.com/2018/06/05/end-of-an-era-new-jersey-legalizes-surrogacy-29-years-after-baby-m

# posted by

Joe : 9:15 AM

So far as the overwrought analogy between a completely voluntary surrogate parenting contract and a plea bargain where the alternatives are at best the cost of trial to gain acquittal and at worse imprisonment and fines, I do not have much to add to Brett's spot on observations.

The real question Sandy suggests is, to what extent, if any, should the state have the power to coerce people into entering favored contracts (See Obamacare) or outlaw entering into (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) or declining to enforce (courts) disfavored contracts.

Contracts are the primary means by which a free people voluntarily order their own affairs with one another. Thus, totalitarian and other authoritarian governments view contracts as an obvious power lever to direct people's lives. If you do not buy the health insurance the state thinks you should, the state will compel you to enter into an approved insurance contract and outlaw the rest. If you do not buy the energy the state favors, the state will force you to buy it. If you are a poor person who does not manage your money the way the state thinks you should, the state will outlaw or courts will decline to enforce high risk, high interest financing agreements, eliminating any legal source of finance for you. So on, and so forth.

It is important to note, we are not discussing situations of fraud, coercion or diminished capacity, although supporters of the aforementioned policies will often make false equivalencies to these.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:34 AM

Brett's "In free market negotiations, there is no duress, because ... " neglects lack of realistic bargaining power to effectively negotiate, especially wage-earners with employment agreements and Internet users. Just say no and there's no paycheck or access to social medial

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:11 AM

Shag: neglects lack of realistic bargaining power to effectively negotiate, especially wage-earners with employment agreements and Internet users. Just say no and there's no paycheck or access to social media

Actually, the bargaining power dynamic is completely reversed

A business owner invests his money up front before her business creates the product for sale. The only way she recovers that investment, nevertheless turn a profit, is if the consumer voluntarily purchases the business's product.

On the other hand, if the consumer declines to purchase the product, he is no worse for the wear.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:32 AM

Ross Douthat has a very interesting column in today's Times

Under the rules of English syntax, that is a possible sentence. In any other sense, it is not.

# posted by

CJColucci : 11:37 AM

I think CJ Colucci has this one right.

As for the rest, "duress" in the legal system consists of unlawful pressure to do something. Neither the OP nor the comments mention any form of duress which meets that standard. I think it's quite legitimate to argue for expanding the definition of duress, but I also think those who want to do that need to offer a definition.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:55 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 12:00 PM

The problem is that outside of the legal system "duress" is not well-defined, and it is not binary - either there or not.

There are certainly situations where refusing an offer would produce a very unattractive, albeit legal, result.

I think it's better to think of the set of alternatives faced by an individual and think about how they relate to the deal on offer. If you don't want to pay the car dealer's price you can buy a cheaper car. No problem.

If your car breaks down and you have no other way to get to work, and no money to fix it without taking out a payday loan, then it's fair to say you took the loan "under duress," or whatever other term you want to use.

If the only available way to make any money is a poorly paid dangerous job then you take it "under duress."

If you find yourself in a legal dispute and must give way because you lack the money to pay a lawyer you were under duress as surely as if the other side put a gun to your head.

It is worth thinking about the social, legal, political, and economic environment, over which the individual has little control, that puts people in these situations.

# posted by

byomtov : 12:27 PM

I think byomtov provides some good aspects of what "duress" means and the law in various respects takes them into consideration. Take this comment (in dissent since it was 1923) regarding a minimum wage law (Adkins v. Children's Hospital):

Legislatures, in limiting freedom of contract between employee and employer by a minimum wage, proceed on the assumption that employees, in the class receiving least pay, are not upon a full level of equality of choice with their employer, and, in their necessitous circumstances, are prone to accept pretty much anything that is offered. They are peculiarly subject to the overreaching of the harsh and greedy employer. The evils of the sweating system and of the long hours and low wages which are characteristic of it are well known.

Note this was written by Chief Justice Taft, not one of the court liberals. This is at least partially a matter of "duress" and the law factors that in. I see that Black's Law Dictionary (per Wikipedia) defines "duress" as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]." You will then have to parse "threat or coercion" etc.

Suffice to say there are any number of ways to define such things including what is "unlawful" threat or coercion. A lot of things will be balanced and the law and lawyer can reasonably factor things out. Of course, the terms will be greatly debated.

# posted by

Joe : 12:55 PM

I think Joe's comments are well-taken, as usual. To the extent that there is anything interesting in Douthat's column, it's the moral and intellectual blindness which causes him to see those factors (at least some of them) in a practice which he doesn't like, but fail to see them in equivalent circumstances.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:12 PM

Adkins v. Children's Hospital: "Legislatures, in limiting freedom of contract between employee and employer by a minimum wage, proceed on the assumption that employees, in the class receiving least pay, are not upon a full level of equality of choice with their employer, and, in their necessitous circumstances, are prone to accept pretty much anything that is offered. They are peculiarly subject to the overreaching of the harsh and greedy employer. The evils of the sweating system and of the long hours and low wages which are characteristic of it are well known."

Of course, this is economic nonsense. As with everything else in a marketplace, compensation is set by supply and demand, not the socialist shibboleth of relative bargaining power between evil capital and helpless labor.

Labor demand is set by what consumers are willing to pay for a good or service, not the whim of a greedy employer.

Labor supply is set by the number of employees with or trainable in the necessary skill set available to work at the business.

An employer cannot pay an employee more than he can produce in goods and services for which consumers are willing to pay.

If a government mandates minimum compensation above what a young or low skilled can produce, the state has made that person effectively unemployable. This is the primary reason why progressive nations have high endemic youth and low skill unemployment.

If a government mandates minimum compensation above what a consumer is willing to pay, the business fails. This is one of the reasons why small business creation has fallen and failure has risen over time

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:01 PM

That's a fairy tale version. There's a reason why the gas is always more expensive at the gas station that is right before the exit to get on the busy highway, it's because if you didn't get it before, and you need it, they've got you. This dynamic in many different forms goes on throughout the economy.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 3:12 PM

"neglects lack of realistic bargaining power to effectively negotiate"

Conservatism has kind of made a fetish out of ignoring the common sense general observation that some people have advantages in life that effect outcomes, willful blindness to different bargaining power is just one aspect of this.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 3:15 PM

Mr. W: willful blindness to different bargaining power is just one aspect of this.

The socialist solution to increasing labor bargaining power was the labor union, which could no better defeat the iron law of supply and demand than a minimum wage.

If a union negotiates compensation above what a young or low skilled person can produce, the union has made that person effectively unemployable by the business.

If a union negotiates compensation above what a consumer is willing to pay, the business fails or finds a way to break or move away from the union.

This is why unions have almost completely disappeared from the private economy and primarily exist where the government can force taxpayers to foot the bill.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:36 PM

Spam would probably bring back the "yellow dog contract." I guess the "willing buyer" (employee) had a will to survive, feed his family. SPAM conceded in a recent thread that America never had a "pure free market." SPAM did not later respond to what he meant when he used the phrase "free market.'

Perish SPAM is of the view that the UCC use of the work "unconscionable" in various of its Uniform laws was a socialist plot. I wonder if SPAM negotiates privacy agreements on Internet sites he utilizes. Has SPAM negotiated agreements with financial firms different from what the latter offer? Do SPAM's client agreements require arbitration?

SPAM is the type of libertarian who thinks he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. But I'm confident that SPAM and his spouse have been the recipients of various subsidies as a rural attorney practicing before local police courts, entering into plea agreements that benefit him economically, permitting him to spend hours at legal blogs proclaiming the libertarian mantra of selfishness uber selflessness. I rather doubt that SPAM is involved with the legally lucrative plea agreements described in my 8:31 AM comment.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:10 PM

Shag:

You unwittingly stumbled onto a valid point.

Transactions between employers and prospective employees, or businesses and their customers rarely involve any individual negotiation at all. An employer offers a compensation package or a business offers a good or service for sale and the employee/consumer takes it or leaves it.

Any movement in compensation or price is done in the aggregate over time depending on the availability of accepting employees and paying customers.

This is another reason why the theory about bargaining disparity is nonsense.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:48 PM

I wonder how many employees SPAM has - and how long they stay. I wonder how many employer clients he advises on matters of compensating employees. Employers in tight labor markets often match wages offered to a productive employee planning to leave. When labor markets are tight, individual employees and/or unions have increased bargaining power.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 5:11 PM

Of course, this is economic nonsense. As with everything else in a marketplace, compensation is set by supply and demand, not the socialist shibboleth of relative bargaining power between evil capital and helpless labor.

And what exactly shapes those supply and demand curves?

An employer cannot pay an employee more than he can produce in goods and services for which consumers are willing to pay.

But employers can surely pay less, and will do so if possible.

# posted by

byomtov : 5:20 PM

Shag:

The blind hog found another acorn. The tightness of the labor market (supply) determines compensation.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:17 PM

BD: An employer cannot pay an employee more than he can produce in goods and services for which consumers are willing to pay.

byomtov: But employers can surely pay less, and will do so if possible.

Sure, but employers are in competition with one another for the same workers.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:18 PM

You don't have to know much about economics to see Bart's fairy tale story has some holes. For one, you can just remember that the decline in union membership in the private workforce he points to here correlates with the same period that Bart has been recently telling us has been bad economically for the nation (at the time he was ascribing the blame to growth in regulatory bureaucracy). It's hard to argue the negative effects of unions when our economy, by his own admission, did worse when there kept being less presence of them. Also one can recall that industries in other nations perform quite competitively with relatively stronger union presences (think Germany's auto industry).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:27 PM

It's also hilarious that he sees the ubiquity of take it or leave it employment and purchase terms as evidence *against* unequal bargaining power between workers/consumers and employers/sellers. There's no better sign in any negotiation who has who 'over a barrel' than when one side doesn't dicker at all but rather comes into the room, presents their terms and says 'take it or leave it.'

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:32 PM

employers are in competition with one another for the same workers.

Not necessarily. Many labor markets have monopsonistic characteristics, especially where there are few large employers who employ many fairly low-wage workers.

You are taking the simplistic models of chapter 1 and acting as if they describe reality. They often don't.

# posted by

byomtov : 6:49 PM

Mr. W: For one, you can just remember that the decline in union membership in the private workforce he points to here correlates with the same period that Bart has been recently telling us has been bad economically for the nation (at the time he was ascribing the blame to growth in regulatory bureaucracy). It's hard to argue the negative effects of unions when our economy, by his own admission, did worse when there kept being less presence of them.

If you are going to observe a correlation and argue for causation, ensure you first have a correlation.

Our economic slide began with the New Deal's imposition of today's progressive political economy.

Part of that progressive political economy was the NRA's corporatist unionization policy which expanded union power and also maintained high unemployment for years of depression by raising labor costs for business.

The unions remained a major force for decades afterward until their slide started in the 1980s.

Also one can recall that industries in other nations perform quite competitively with relatively stronger union presences (think Germany's auto industry).

German performance started falling off decades ago when faced with foreign non-union competition, including the United States. Several times during that period of decline, government and business teamed up on the unions to force concessions to remain competitive.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:55 PM

Bart is confused. I didn't offer a correlation or causation argument, I just pointed out that his argument to that effect has a very big problem. He argues that unions *necessarily* work in this bad for business way, but, as I mentioned, when union membership took the steep decline it is still in, that *was the very same period* that Bart decried (when he was blaming it on bureaucracy and trying to tie it to falling birth rates) as being bad for the economy. If Bart is correct about the necessary relationship he puts forward then there shouldn't be a declining economy *at the same time as declining unions.* But there is. And that's a good reason to think Bart's posited necessary relationship isn't so.

As to German automakers, VW has the second highest share of the world market and is heavily unionized, another inconvenient fact for Bart's posited 'necessary' relationship.

It seems that in the actual, real empirical non-fairy tale world unions seem to be able to coexist with economic success as easily as they do economic decline. Anyone with common sense would, of course realize that, as they know that different nations and cultures have different things like CEO to average worker pay ratios and so pay matters are not set in stone by the market in the simplistic way Bart describe.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:31 PM

I have to agree with Bart here.

Anyone can see that it has been all downhill for the US economy since the 30's.

# posted by

byomtov : 7:39 PM

Mark Field's about noon comment really frosted me.

Douthat is wrong a lot, but he's also one of the most interesting thinkers and writers, who routinely engages his opponents.

Mark Field is a partisan hack who has spent years telling us how the Constitution and its framers mandated all of his personal views, and says the same stuff (i.e., the opinions held by the center-left types who control the Democratic Party) on every issue.

And he has the unmitigated gall to say thay Douthat never writes anything interesting.

Mark, there's a reason he's at the Times and you are here.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:45 PM

It's been a long time since law school (1954) so I did some Googling and came up with this:

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/outline-contracts-law/policing-the-bargain-outline-contracts-law/unconscionability-and-adhesion-contracts/

for a refresher on "Unconscionability And Adhesion Contracts" with 4 short - really short - pages.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:10 PM

Ironically, Mark Field is really a conservative.

https://www.mark-field.org.uk/

It really frosts me that he pretends to be a Democrat from California.

# posted by

Joe : 12:01 AM

Thank you for this beautiful topic and wait for you a lot of useful topics
I wish you a visit to my humble site
شركة تنظيف مساجد بالبخار بجدة

# posted by

مروة محمد : 12:51 AM

byomtov: Anyone can see that it has been all downhill for the US economy since the 30's.

Economic growth has been cyclically falling since the establishment of the progressive state until 2% GDP growth, no productivity growth and only 46% of adults with full-time employment is now considered to be the new normal.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:30 AM

Joe's link to the conservative Mark Field compels me to recommend James Corden's late nite TV show from London on his "Carpool Karaoke" trip with Paul McCartney, a delightful 23 minutes, a definite contrast to the real liberal Mark Field's Beach Boys surfing. A link is available at the NYTimes online.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:39 AM

"It really frosts me that he pretends to be a Democrat from California."

My defense of slavery really should have tipped you off.

# posted by

Mark Field : 8:48 AM

Once again SPAM gets into his Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling" role on the economy of the US of A as a third-world nation. Of for the days when America was great in The Gilded Age of the late 19th century. This is the old SPAM abnormal. Next SPAM will respond in the mode of Humpty-Dumpty to explain what he meant about the "new normal." Of course he will blame the progressives in the same manner as Trump ripping children from parents blaming the Democrats. Does SPAM trace his claim of cyclically failing economic grown all the way back to the early 20th century start of the progressive movement? Statistics may not lie, but SPAM does.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:53 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:59 AM

Correction: I meant 46% of the population are employed full-time.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:00 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:06 AM

Shag: Does SPAM trace his claim of cyclically failing economic grown all the way back to the early 20th century start of the progressive movement?

No. The official Progressive Era only managed to temporarily impose a progressive state for a brief period around WWI, culminating in the "1920 Depression." The last basically laissez faire government in the 1920s reversed nearly all of it apart from the Fed and a small income tax.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:44 AM

SPAM immediately jumped into his Humpty-Dumpty mode on what he meant. Presumably, SPAM's "1920 Depression" was the fault of progressives but Republican Harding's "Tea Pot Dome" administration reversed this and Republican Coolidge expanded the prosperity of the "Roaring Twenties," handing this over to the Republican Hoover in 1929 who, as a progressive, caused the stock market crash some 7 months after Hoover's inauguration, which Hoover could not cure in the over 3 years remaining in his term, dumping upon Democrat FDR what became the Great Depression. This was a result of that "last basically laissez faire government"? Is that what SPAM wants to bring back with his support of the Trump Administration following SPAM's Cruz Canadacy Crash during the 2016 Republicans' campaign? Laissez Faire, free market gobbledegook. Get rid of the Fed and that income tax? SPAM continues his digressions, aka SPAM's old abnormals.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:58 AM

Shag:

I would recommend the following for your summer reading:

James Grant, The Forgotten Depression

Amity Shlaes, Coolidge

Joan Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive

Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:13 AM

SPAM has long dealt with revisionist history. I wonder how that "Forgotten Depression" compared to the Bush/Cheney Great Recession of 2007-8 that all of us "usual suspects" at this Blog lived through and shared out thoughts. Yes, Bush/Cheney took the Clinton surplus and provided tax cuts, twice, plus war, twice, including the invasion of Iraq based upon WMDs that did not exist, dumping that Great Recession on Obama. On economics/finance Jim Grant has been mostly wrong just about all the time during his career. Perhaps SPAM should recommend this reading list for Brett as one of Trump's Forgotten base. Hoover did give a Dam, which would be progressive, but Harding and Coolidge passed on their failings to him and he could not recover from it in over 3 years after the 1929 Crash.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:33 AM

You can lead an ass to water, but ya can't make the ornery cuss drink.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:05 PM

One conservative who has received respect from liberals is Charles Krauthammer. RIP.

# posted by

Joe : 12:31 PM

I've been following financial markets since the early 1960s and had been for many decades a reader of Barron's and other financial journals. Jim Grant's career has been as a Bear, an overBEARing one, for a long period, occasionally like a broken clock BEARing the right time. That's been his career. SPAM relies upon ASSTRIAN [sick!] economics of yesteryear and as a libertarian is incapable of leading, like Rand Paul. Besides, that water is polluted.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:51 PM

Shag:

OK, I'll let Barron's and other financial journals recommend your reading:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-forgotten-depression-by-james-grant-1415750031

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323807004578282212160724672

https://www.wsj.com/articles/herbert-hoover-was-wrong-1479508055

https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB118377522237259874

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:24 PM

Is SPAM representing that Barron's/WSJ in publishing what may be book reviews are in accord with the reviewers' views of the reviews? I reject the views on the editorial side of WSJ.

Must be DUI plea bargain day in SPAM's rural police courts affording him research time to recommend his regressive ASSTRIAN [sick!] economics. There's a rumor that Grant has recently turned BULLISH! That's funny, he doesn't look BULLISH. Perhaps SPAM's financial portfolio has been guided by Grant.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted, despite Gina], I wonder if Grant is working on a book that might be titled "Bush/Cheney Great Recession Never Happened, Fake News!"

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:12 PM

Here's a link to a NYTimes review of Grant's gook:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/books/review/the-forgotten-depression-by-james-grant.html

"Grant’s book is a lively exercise in economic nostalgia, a game effort to build a bridge to the pre-New Deal era when the tax burden was tiny, the dollar defined by gold and government let business do as it would. But as an economic guide for 21st-century policy makers in a crisis, the forgotten depression is best forgotten."

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:28 PM

We must exorcize SPAM's constant efforts of exercising economic nostalgia.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:31 PM

Here are some opinions of the quality Amity Shlaes' thinking.

DeLong.

Thoma quoting David Warsh.

They actually know what they are talking about, unlike Shlaes, who seems just to be a somewhat more refined version of your standard dishonest RW talking.

# posted by

byomtov : 4:41 PM