Saturday, December 12, 2015

Ted Cruz's Supreme Court Memos

Gerard N. Magliocca

If Ted Cruz becomes the Republican presidential nominee next year, then he would be the first Supreme Court clerk ever nominated for President.  (Indeed, I think he would be the first law clerk of any sort nominated for President, though I'd have to give that some more thought.)  In my view, the voters have a right to see the memos that Cruz wrote to Chief Justice Rehnquist during his clerkship.

The Rehnquist Papers (which are held by the Hoover Institution at Stanford) are not open after 1981, as the Chief Justice stipulated that his papers should remain closed so long as a Justice that he served with is still alive.  Nevertheless, Senator Cruz may have retained copies of the memos that he wrote to the Chief.  If not, he could request that they be made available to the public.  Ordinarily, the wishes of a Justice with respect to his or her papers should be followed, but I think when a former law clerk seeks the White House an exception is justified if the clerk/candidate consents.

Of course, I have no idea what Cruz worked on during the 1996-'97 Term, but some of the notable cases from that Term include:

Printz v. United States (the anti-commandeering principle)
Clinton v. Jones (presidential immunity from civil litigation)
Washington v. Glucksberg (the right of assisted suicide)
Boerne v. Flores (RFRA and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment)

I'm sure some Republican primary and caucus voters would be interested to see what the Senator thought about these and other important matters that came before the Court at that time.



The Cruz memos would be interesting, but what is Supreme Court practice concerning the advice that justices receive from their clerks?

As a political aside, Cruz just broke into a big lead among likely Iowa GOP caucus goers in the latest Des Moines Register polling.

The "aside" of our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) on his obvious do in the Republican hunt for whom our own MRO obviously trolls at this Blog, brings back memories of former GOP winners of Iowa Caucus, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. All three of them can be described CRUZTACEANS.

But on topic, I'm more interested in what CJ Rhenquist thought of Ted s.CRUZ, to see if the CJ was presient about how fellow Senators feel about him.

And as for my own aside, consider Clerk Rhenquist's memo on Plessy for his Justice when Brown v. Bd. was before the Court and how Rhenquist had to two-step the memo during confirmation hearing(s). Perhaps Ted s.CRUZ would be sensitive to having his memos to the CJ made public during the campaign. But I think the CJ and Ted s.CRUZ have a lot in common - Turds of a Feather as we would say on the corner - comparing the CJ's early political role in his home state thwarting minority voting, with the role of Ted s.CRUZ in the Bush v. Gore battle where the Court (5-4, including of course the CJ) electing Bush.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], perhaps Gerard can provide a summary of CJ Rhenquist's contributions to the notable cased he cites - or is that our weekend assignment?


As a point of disclosure, I decided on Cruz as my preferred candidate when he took to the Senate floor and called out the GOP leadership for holding show votes for the voters before betraying them by uniting with the Democrats to fully fund all of the programs which those voters elected a GOP Congress to reverse.

Both Dubya and Obama won the Iowa caucuses before becoming president.

I welcome the memos but not sure how relevant his work as a law clerk was. It would be informative to look at his advocacy in front of the Supreme Court.

He also was involved in other cases for which he didn't directly argue:\

This stuff is open to review already and involves someone more advanced then a law clerk working for a justice.

The "R" stands for "Rafael."

In mostly unrelated news:

It would be informative to look at his advocacy in front of the Supreme Court.

What a great suggestion! In chronological order:

Frew vs. Hawkins: does Texas' consent decree with the Feds to improve health care for poor children enforceable despite the 11th Amendment? Cruz argued that it did not & lost 9-0.

Dretke v. Haley: could Dretke argue in a habeas corpus filing that actual innocence & ineffective counsel preclude extending his sentence? Cruz argued that he couldn't & lost 6-3.

Medellín v. Dretke: was a capitally-sentenced criminal entitled to post-sentencing relief because his consul wasn't informed? Cruz argued that he wasn't; the 5-4 Court sent the case back for further appeals in Texas courts. Argued to the Rehnquist court.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry: Is partisan redistricting OK? Cruz argued that it was and won 5-4, but Kennedy swung to find parts of the redistricting plan in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Argued to the Roberts court.

Smith v. Texas: If a judge's bad instruction to a jury resulted in a death sentence, and the court overturned the sentence, can a Texas appeals court find that the bad instruction wasn't all that important and reimpose the sentence? Cruz argued that they could & lost 5-4.

Panetti v. Quarterman: Must a capitally-sentenced criminal understand be sane enough to understand why he is to be executed? Cruz argued that he didn't, but the 5-4 court sent the case back for further psychiatric evaluation.

Medellín v. Texas: more about the rights of a capitally-convicted criminal under the Vienna Convention, this time with a Presidential memo in hand. Cruz argued that he had none and won, 6-3.

Kennedy v. Louisiana: Did striking down the death penalty for rape apply to the capitally-sentenced rapist of a child? Cruz, a friend of the court on behalf of Louisiana, argued that it did not, and lost 5-4.

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.: This is a patent infringement case, with Cruz representing SEB, the French patent holder, which had already won in district and circuit courts; and then won 8-1 in the Supreme Court.

You're welcome to infer a pattern in the cases that Cruz took.


As Texas Solicitor General, Cruz was responsible for arguing the state's position on all criminal appeals. This is pretty much ministerial.

The two interesting cases of the lot are Cruz's victories in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry and especially Medellín v. Texas, which were excellent examples of Cruz's ability to reset an argument on his terms. This is a talent which transferred well into politics.

Yahoo recently published an excellent article examining Cruz' strategic thinking in law and politics.

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) "subtly" aims at the Evangelicall Iowa voter with his description of Ted s.CRUZ ministerial position as TX Solicitor General, where the rubber hits the road. (Or inadvertently amusing, if not subtle.)

Our own MRO's claims of " ... excellent examples of Cruz's ability to reset an argument on his terms. This is a talent which transferred well into politics." begs the question of whether a successful public or private legal practitioner would make a good President. While several attorneys have served as President during my lifetime (nee 1930), none seem to have demonstrated significant legal successes. Nixon did not demonstrate that he had significant legal skills in the actual practice of law. But I don't swallow that Ted s.CRUZ has demonstrated significant legal skills, as his career course has been political almost from the git-go. He brings his Canadian Crude to American politics. Carpet bombing!

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], perhaps our own MRO should update his photo wearing a ted s.CRUZ campaign button since he is openly trolling for him at this Blog.


Cruz has not demonstrated significant legal skills? Really?

Cruz was at the top of his Harvard class. Dershowitz called him "off the charts brilliant."

Clerked for Renquist.

Top tier appellate attorney named as one of the top 50 attorneys in the United States.

The Dems pitched Obama as some kind of legal genius, even though he barely practiced law. Cruz is the real thing.

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) is obviously in love, politically, with a Senator who is despisea by his fellow Senators, including those on his side of the aisle. In an earlier comment our MRO said he came to his epiphany to support Ted s.CRUZ with these inspirational words:

"I decided on Cruz as my preferred candidate when he took to the Senate floor and called out the GOP leadership for holding show votes for the voters before betraying them by uniting with the Democrats to fully fund all of the programs which those voters elected a GOP Congress to reverse."

Our own MRO is like Ted s.CRUZ in the sense that everyone else is out of step but him. Now that's love, politically, that is.

But our own MRO missed my point that at least in modern times (e.g., my 85 years), no President has been a really, really successful lawyer. I in no way suggested that Obama had a successful legal career. Ted s.CRUZ left the public practice of law for the Senate, a planned political move. (Think of his learning to play tennis to improve his chances of a SCOTUS clerkship.) (Think of his resentment after Bush v. Gore with no big job in the Bush/Cheney Administration.)

Our own MRO closes with: "Cruz is the real thing." Hey, MRO, it's not Valentine's Day yet.

Shall we talk about Dersh to evaluate his views on some recent matters?

But maybe our own MRO will to run for political office in his Mile High State (of Mind) inspired by the hatred spewed by Ted s.CRUZ.

Ted s.CRUZ is a political animal. Carpet bombing?



I will take that as a walk back of an obviously nonsensical claim.

I agree that we have never had a "really really successful lawyer" as president.

That may change next year. We shall see.

As Texas Solicitor General, Cruz was responsible for arguing the state's position on all criminal appeals. This is pretty much ministerial.

No need to condescend. I am well aware that a state's SG will take the cases that fall his or her way. I also take it as manifesting a sociopathic lack of compassion to work as TSG when so many are lined up for the death chamber. Frew v. Hawkins likewise illustrates this. I would vomit if put to argue it.

So many Republicans find compassion or forgiveness only when they or theirs are personally affected. Trent Lott finding virtue in Medicare because his Mom needed it. Dick Cheney repudiating homophobia because of his daughter; William Bennett justifying his own gambling because he could afford it; I used to have a list of such exceptionalisms. But is there one for Cruz? Is there anyone who needs a safety net that he won't trash?

Our own MRO's (Macro 'Rhoidless One):

"I will take that as a walk back of an obviously nonsensical claim."

I will take as our own MRO sticking his head, once more again, up his own derriere. I assume he was referring to my view that Ted s.CRUZ has not demonstrated significant legal skills. Ted s.CRUZ may be a master debater but that skill, off hand, does not make a good or successful lawyer. Our own MRO has used this Blog (and others) to advance his resume as the top dog DUI legal expert in his Mountaintop community. But so much of this is mere political puffery, whether by our own MRO of by acolytes of Ted s.CRUZ. Perhaps our own MRO's judgment of the legal skills of Ted s.CRUZ relies upon how he sees himself on his Mountaintop.

But troll on, our own MRO, opening the door for more CRUZ missiles aimed at him as he now leads the pack in evangelical Iowa, "Praise God!" Larry struck the target earlier this morning.

Taking another look back at modern presidencies (e.g., my 85 years), the only really, really mean [expletives deleted] President was Richard "Tricky Dick Nixon, and he barely won in '68, mostly because of anger over Vietnam added to the Nixon Southern Strategy. Meanness is difficult to hide (other than perhaps from forgiving evangelists in Iowa who gas up with ethanol) from voters. Imagine, carpet bombing!


Cruz is not a Democrat SG who violates his duty to defend the laws of his state because he disagrees with them or to advance a political agenda. Mercy is in the portfolio of the prosecutor in her charging decision and the governor in his pardon power.

Alas, mercy has long been absent in Texas - and in the Republican Party.


I am curious what makes Nixon "really really mean" in your eyes.

The man ran the most progressive government between FDR and Obama.

Perhaps our own MRO's history on Trickly Dick does not go back to his early days in Congress shortly after WW II and his Checker-ed time as Ike's VP. (Ike was once asked to describe Tricky Dick's good sides, responding in effect, "Give me a couple of weeks and I'll get back to you." Then there was the 160 campaign losing to Kennedy, his losing CA attempt in '62, his failure to keep his promise that we would no longer have him to kick around, then in '68 his revival for the reasons earlier stated, but his secret plan to stop the Vietnam War, which continued on into his second term, eventually being brought down by Watergate, forcing him to resign. He did some relatively progressive things. He did open the door to China, something that if a Democrat tried Tricky D. would have been the first to object. And the famous tapes that were not erased becoming available to the public. And in his presidency he was surrounded by really, really mean aides, including the Machiavellian Henry.

But our own MRO's description of Nixon as the "most" ignores LBJ, as the Civil Rights Acts of the mid '60s were most progressive, inspiring Nixon's Southern Strategy in '68, which can been continued by Republicans since in varying degrees, and especially currently in the 2016 Republican campaigns, including by Ted s.CRUZ.

Attempts at revisionism have not worked for Nixon.

This comment has been removed by the author.

"The man ran the most progressive government between FDR and Obama."

This is like saying that Woodrow Wilson was more conservative than Ronald Reagan (because the government was much smaller under the former).

His record in front of the Supreme Court in the cases cited to me is more a concern in that this is the atmosphere, so to speak, R. Ted Cruz professionally gained his experience. This is as noted a choice and suggests his views. The same applies when looking at the professional background of Alito and Roberts.

See also, George W. Bush's political activities. In fact, Cruz worked with Bush as a domestic policy adviser, worked on Bush v. Gore (15 years ago -- tempus fugit*) and so forth. This would be informative, including those who see him as an outsider sort.


Honestly, I'm not sure what his memos as a law clerk would tell us given we have so much other stuff afterwards to judge him. Such information is probably more useful (not much) than various things we are given these days (such as in depth tax returns) and are of some interest. But, as applied here, it seems more of an interesting footnote and way to get a window into something we otherwise would not.

Perhaps, if is is up for a judgeship in a President Rubio administration.

This comment has been removed by the author.

BD: The man ran the most progressive government between FDR and Obama.

The progressive political economy has four elements: (1) a bureaucracy directing the economy, (2) a redistributionary tax code, (3) minimum compensation mandates (wages, benefits and time off), and (4) a welfare state.

Nixon dramatically expanded all of these elements.

Mr. W: This is like saying that Woodrow Wilson was more conservative than Ronald Reagan

These presidents were diametrically opposite.

Woodrow Wilson was the first president to substantially establish the first two elements of progressivism. His bureaucracy's seizure of railways and misdirection of most of the rest of the economy, the massive tax increases combined with the hyper inflation caused by his new Federal Reserve caused the 1920 depression.

Reagan mildly deregulated the economy, dramatically reformed the redistributionary tax system, and basically stopped the 1970s expansion of the rest of the progressive state.

Shag: "But our own MRO's description of Nixon as the "most" ignores LBJ, as the Civil Rights Acts of the mid '60s were most progressive."

Race is not a major element of the progressive political economy, but American progressives have a long and continuing history of supporting government racial discrimination. LBJ's Civil Rights Act was actually classically liberal and a departure from progressive policy before and afterward.


Before LBJ in American history, especially post-Reconstruction As, where were the classically liberal that our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) seems to admire? For those strangers to our own MRO, consider that he thinks Americas best days were The Gilded Age of the late 19th century. Once again, our own MRO deals with bad history. Progressive policies are not limited to the economy. If our own MRO and his ilk are classical liberals, then why do they continue to support Nixon's Southern Strategy? FDR was a progressive. LBJ in Congress was a progressive - and this progressiveness continued as President.


Classical liberalism is limited government, human liberty and equal protection of the law.

The Civil War amendments were classical liberalism. Slavery and Jim Crow were the products of racist Democrats who soon became racist progressive Democrats.

FDR had no problem with Jim Crow and discriminated against African Americans in the military.

LBJ was personally a racist, but to his immense credit parted from his racist progressive Democrat colleagues and enacted the Civil Rights Act to repeal Jim Crow with GOP votes.

In 1972, white Southerners went to Nixon when you progressive Democrats replaced government racism in favor of whites with government racism in favor of blacks and campaigned on surrender in Vietnam. They were hardly alone. Nixon won a 49 state landslide that year.

1972 did not put the South in the GOP column. Southern whites went back and forth in presidential elections until Bush 43 and did not fully shift to the GOP in Congress until Gingrich.

No Southern or national GOP government has enacted government racial discrimination into law. Racial preferences are still the sole province of progressive Democrats.

The vast majority of law clerk memos say (basically) "Factbound. Splitless. Deny."

Bart, you missed my point. If you compare federal spending, number of regulations and agencies, etc., under Wilson and Reagan you'd see demonstrably higher numbers for the latter.

But it would be silly to declare that Wilson was the conservative to Reagan's liberal. Historical context matters. Nixon was President at a time when the nation was much more liberal at base, compared to those around him he was the conservative choice. He was a lot like Eisenhower in that way.

"No Southern or national GOP government has enacted government racial discrimination into law."

Weren't you just talking about Nixon?

Imagine, Tricky Dick won a 49 state landslide in 1972 with a lot of skullduggery that was eventually exposed as Watergate. The Nixon Southern Strategy had started with the 1968 campaign and expanded during his first term while many more were dying in Vietnam and adjoining communities. The combination of the Southern Strategy and the skullduggery led to that 1972 landslide and the country almost landslided into dysfunction. Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) provides fantasies for real history. Consider now the most significant base of today's Republican Party comes from former Democrats in the former slave states, states which continue a more subtle Jim Crow. And our own MRO and his ilk are part and parcel of this. Our own MRO continues with Seinfeld's George Costanza's "It's not a lie if you believe it." Here's what our own MRO believes:

"No Southern or national GOP government has enacted government racial discrimination into law. Racial preferences are still the sole province of progressive Democrats."

Consider just the laws passed to limit and restrict minority voting in recent years.

Perhaps our own MRO really, really believes his crapola. But I don't think he's quite that dense. He is a troll at this Blog, now openly for Ted s.CRUZ. Recall how he was in lockstep with Bush/Cheney during their 8 years. And we know how that turned out. He supported their policy of torture. Now he supports Ted s.CRUZ who talks of carpet bombing.

It requires quite a bit of imagination to believe that Nixon engaged in enough skullduggery to be responsible for that landslide win. The moron tried to steal an election he was going to win anyway. That's generally understood by anybody who isn't fond of political fantasies.

Apparently Nixon suffered from the same paranoia as Nixon, whose arsenal was skullduggery (despite his Quaker background), whereas Brett prefers weapons of intimidation and destruction. The 1968 race was close. Nixon wanted that second term and his paranoia led to the steps he took, with the cadre of paranoids surrounding him. Brett is applying hindsight whereas Nixon was focused on foresight by what he did.

By the Bybee {expletives deleted], Brett's hindsight is not 20-20. Paranoia is demonstrated by fear of the changing demographics for Brett. Delusional.

Mr. W: Bart, you missed my point. If you compare federal spending, number of regulations and agencies, etc., under Wilson and Reagan you'd see demonstrably higher numbers for the latter.

Do you?

Reagan led a period of deregulation. Wilson and the Democrats created the federal reserve and attempted to run much of the economy in WWI.

Nixon was President at a time when the nation was much more liberal at base, compared to those around him he was the conservative choice. He was a lot like Eisenhower in that way.

Nixon campaigned right and governed left...far left.

Eisenhower was a status quo president.

Shag: Tricky Dick won a 49 state landslide in 1972 with a lot of skullduggery that was eventually exposed as Watergate.

Watergate was a third rate burglary which had no affect on the outcome of the election. The Democrats alienated most of the electorate with their policies.

BD: "No Southern or national GOP government has enacted government racial discrimination into law. Racial preferences are still the sole province of progressive Democrats."

Shag: Consider just the laws passed to limit and restrict minority voting in recent years.

Precisely what laws have the GOP enacted which prevent African American or Hispanic Americans from voting?

I am sorry, but progressive Democrats are the only ones imposing racial preferences. You folks have been the party of government racial discrimination for nearly two centuries now. Live with that fact or change it.

Yes, Watergate was a third rate burglary and did not affect the outcome of the 1972 election, but the facts were not publicly know. The facts started to emerge thereafter and the third rate burglary turned into a major cover-up with all it eventually exposed about Nixon and his minions and their skullduggery such that even Republicans could not support Nixon, with the result of Nixon's resignation, all with the Vietnam War that he became C-i-C of in 1969 continuing on and expanding despite his '68 "secret plan" to resolve that War. Nixon failed eventually in his dictatorial efforts. But our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) ignores Nixon's policies. Those who voted for Nixon were not amused with the disgraces he imposed upon America. Consider the number of convictions in his administration. Talk about an attempt at dictatorship. The constitutional system survived this crisis, but at great cost. The Vietnam War did not end well and was a cloud over America's military power that continues to this date, as George W.'s wars revived the Vietnam syndrome.

And apparently our own MRO is not up on current events on the steps taken in recent years by the former slave states to limit and restrict minority voting. PApparently our own MRO continues CRUZ along with his head up his derriere. There is a lack of lumber for our own MRO's "Pinocchios."

What are the racial preferences being imposed by Progressive Democrats claimed by our own MRO? Must be those second hand DUI fumes and/or recreational doobies that fog his mind resulting in really bad mishistory. The history of racial discrimination was dominant in the Deep South during slave days and continued with Jim Crow despite the Reconstruction As. It was not Progressives who accommodated this. Finally with Brown v. Bd. followed by the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Acts of the mid '60s, some progress was made againt discrimination. But the Republican Party as reconstituted by former Democrats in the former slaves switching parties and constituting still its base fought these efforts tooth and nail, including in the current GOP presidential campaigns for 2016. Our own MRO can live with that and obviously has no desire to change it. But seriously, how can our own MRO really,really believe his own crapola?

BREAKING NEWS! Rush Limbaugh has come to the defense of Ted s.CRUZ against the attacks on the latter by Donald T-rump (with his increasing national lead in the GOP Clown Car 2016 presidential race) joining our own MRO in a political menage a trois (aka the Three Stooges).

Those interested in what real historians have to say should checkout:

at AHA Today: "The Legacy of the Voting Rights Act." It's very short but provides interesting details post Shelby County on actions taken by former slave states and other states to limit and restrict minority voting.


How precisely does a voter ID requirement applying to everyone discriminate against minorities (apart from the illegal aliens against whom this requirement is targeted)?

"If you compare federal spending, number of regulations and agencies, etc., under Wilson and Reagan you'd see demonstrably higher numbers for the latter.

Do You?"

You're welcome to try to show that the federal government had higher taxes, more agencies, employees and regulations during the Wilson administration than it did during the Reagan.

"How precisely does a voter ID requirement applying to everyone discriminate against minorities"

When it's more difficult for them to obtain it?

Facially, like our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One), such ID statutes are bearded. DOJ is checking into some of this. There is virtually no evidence of voter fraud to justify these ID statutes. The former slave states, like lemmings, have taken the same course. Coincidence? Does our own MRO really, really believe illegal aliens are the targets of these statutes? Or does our own MRO continue with his head up his derriere?

Mr. W:

I do not attribute the progressive state imposed before Reagan to Reagan.

Wilson massively increased the size of the regulatory state, taxes and spending as a percentage of GDP. The Wilson administration nationalized the railroads and quasi nationalized strategic industries during WWI.

Reagan deregulated, substantially lowered tax rates, and left office with spending as a percentage of GDP slightly lower than where it was when he signed his first budget. Spending fell further over the subsequent decade because of the peace dividend from Reagan winning the Cold War.

How is it harder for minorities to obtain photo ID? The DMVs serve everyone equally regardless of race.


The Obama DOJ is a corrupt adjunct of the Democratic Party. The AG did not find that Black Panthers holding clubs by a precinct constituted intimidation and Justice has never seriously looked into voter fraud.

If they did look, there is evidence of rampant voter fraud.


Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) sifts gears to focus on a Black Panthers incident. I wonder how that compared with those white-sheeted KKKers' numbers of incidents over the many, many decades that included The Gilded Age tht our own MRO thinks were America's best days (in the late 19th century). Our own MRO doesn't put things in perspective. And he ignores open carry events in TX by, you guessed it, whites. Yes, eventually our own MRO reverts to colorfulness on racial matters. Or did my reference to "bearded" go against his grain? So sensitive.


You really need to stop walking into these slapdowns.

The KKK and Black Panthers are both Democrat terrorist organizations.

You really need to stop walking into these slapdowns.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:50 AM

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

"Reagan deregulated, substantially lowered tax rates, and left office with spending as a percentage of GDP slightly lower than where it was when he signed his first budget"

"How is it harder for minorities to obtain photo ID? The DMVs serve everyone equally regardless of race."

If they can get there and pay the fees (not only for the license, but the supporting documents necessary for the license these days), yes. There's the rub.

Imagine, "slapdowns" from our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One), a mere NOAGN* - how biting! OUCH! Even his mishistory is growing a beard.


BD: "How is it harder for minorities to obtain photo ID? The DMVs serve everyone equally regardless of race."

If they can get there and pay the fees (not only for the license, but the supporting documents necessary for the license these days), yes. There's the rub.

That is a problem with being an undocumented illegal alien.

As for Americans, why exactly is it harder for minorities than non-minorities to obtain the identification documentation necessary to function in today's society?

The government relies upon identification documentation as its primary fraud prevention tool for nearly everything apart conscious exceptions made to provide welfare state benefits and the vote to illegal aliens.

If they can get there and pay for it, they can buy a pound of ground chuck at Krogers. Does that make Krogers racist for charging everybody the same price?

Disparate impact is a scam designed to spare the racial grievance industry ever having to admit that things have improved.

BD: "Reagan deregulated, substantially lowered tax rates, and left office with spending as a percentage of GDP slightly lower than where it was when he signed his first budget"

Mr. W:

I thought we discarded with this link months ago?

One more time into the breach...

Spending: As a libertarian, Mr. Richman should know better than to commit the common progressive error of attributing the spending of the first fiscal year of a president's term to that president (with the exception of FY 2009, where the Democrat Congress refused to enact a budget before Obama took office so he could sign off on an enormous baseline spending hike). Jimmy Carter's last budget was for FY 1981 from Oct 1980 to September 1981. Reagan signed the FY 1982 budget, which was my starting point and included the automatic welfare state spending increased from the second dip of the 1980-1982 double dip recession which were not Reagan's fault. Also, I do not know who uses "national income" as a comparison for government spending. My comparison is to GDP.

Taxes: Mr. Richman apparently is unaware of basic supply side concepts. The reasons why tax revenues as a percentage of national income barely fell after Reagan sharply reduced tax rates was because tax compliance rises as tax rates fall and Reagan also eliminated a raft of deductions which allowed tax avoidance.

Regulation: Mr. Richman noted: "Some deregulation has occurred for banks, intercity buses, ocean shipping, and energy. But nothing good has happened in health, safety, and environmental regulations." Deregulation is deregulation, even if we libertarians would prefer far more.

What Reagan accomplished by peeling off opposing party members in a Democrat House run by Tip O'Neil is quite remarkable.

In a previous place, Prof. GM noted he leaned Republican so though he speaks in third person, sorta think he might be talking about himself or others he knows.

Research has shown how id disproportionately burdens racial minorities as well as other groups (including the disabled, students and the elderly [who might not have the materials, such as birth certificates, necessary to obtain the authorized id, the strictness of the rule different state by state]).

This led to one bipartisan proposal (Carter/Baker) to provide a compromise where id is required, if not as restrictive as some states, but to have an extended phase-in period with various methods to ease the process, including for those who have trouble obtaining ids. See dissenting opinions in Crawford v. Marion (the plurality ruled on limited grounds, not as applied; Judge Posner later had a bit of a mea culpa for allowing such a law, one not as severe as some others too). (also Breyer)

The alleged "scam" idea is refuted though such concerns of denial of rights are selective, including those explicitly stated in the Constitution, including "the right to vote" and "equal protection" (implicit caveats here added by some). When guns are involved, e.g., NRA supporter proposals suddenly are suspect.

I welcome a broad concern here so that all have an equal right to vote, the preservation of all rights in our republic. This includes de facto poll taxes which are expressly (federal) or implicitly (state) disallowed.

Nonetheless, the Constitution and our history specifically is concerned with racial discrimination (e.g., 15A) though various provisions (e.g.,19A - women, 24A - poll taxes, 26A - age) also cover other groups too while general provisions ("equal protection" of "persons" and "citizens") are in place too.

"As for Americans, why exactly is it harder for minorities than non-minorities to obtain the identification documentation necessary to function in today's society?"

First, many people get by without the ID some states require for voting. If you travel and commerce in the same neighborhood circles, which is especially true for many poor people, you can go years without being asked to show that kind of ID to anyone.


"If they can get there and pay for it, they can buy a pound of ground chuck at Krogers. Does that make Krogers racist for charging everybody the same price?"

It doesn't make Kroger's racist, but the result will be that more black people will be unable to buy it than white people.

"Disparate impact is a scam designed to spare the racial grievance industry ever having to admit that things have improved."

I wouldn't say it shows things haven't improved, just that they, and their effects, don't get fixed overnight.


"why exactly is it harder for minorities than non-minorities to obtain the identification documentation necessary to function in today's society?"

Because it costs money and requires transportation, both of which minorities have less of than non-minorities. These requirements act as a poll tax, which, interestingly, were defended with arguments exactly like yours.

Mr. W:

I believe that all or nearly all of the states requiring photo ID to vote give them away for free to the impoverished to avoid the poll tax complaint.

Homeless people can swing the cost of bus fare to get to a nearby DMV.

The fact that the tiny percentage of minorities without proof of birth might be somewhat larger than the tiny percentage of whites without proof of birth should be constitutionally meaningless. No one denied minorities proof of birth because of their race.

When our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) starts his comment with:

"I believe that all or nearly all of the states requiring photo ID to vote give them away for free to the impoverished to avoid the poll tax complaint."

and closes with this:

"No one denied minorities proof of birth because of their race."

his pants must be on fire.

Who recalls the political Rhenquist in his home state long before his appointment to the Court monitoring voting - or attempts to vote - by people of color.

Let's all join in a chorus of "Jumbo Liar" for our own MRO. He is out-Constanzering George. What a MAROON!

"I believe that all or nearly all of the states requiring photo ID to vote give them away for free to the impoverished to avoid the poll tax complaint."

But they don't give away the documents needed to obtain the photo ID in the first place, all together it can be quite costly to a poor person.

"It doesn't make Kroger's racist, but the result will be that more black people will be unable to buy it than white people."

That's kind of my point, isn't it? Disparate outcomes don't make for racism, or else we'd have to racially discriminate in pricing everything in order to NOT be racist.

Disparate impact pretends to be a criteria for determining if racial discrimination is present, but the reality is that in a country where the races are not already identically situated in every respect, the only way to avoid 'disparate impact' is to actively discriminate on the basis of race.

It's not a criteria for finding hidden racism, it's a demand that we racially discriminate forever.

Ted s.CRUZ in last night's GOP Clown Car Debate (aka crapola that should not leave Vegas!) outdid Humpty-Dumpty in his explanation of what he meant by "carpet bombing" ISIS. Alas, there isn't a carpet big enough to hide the filth Ted s.CRUZ tries to sweep under.

Brett's use of "disparate" seems "desperate," in his own Humpty-Dumpty manner. The economics he references regarding pricing came about because of the resistance to the Reconstruction As, the Jim Crow that resulted, and still continues despite Brown v. Bd., the civil rights movement, the Civil Rights Acts of the mid '60s, what with the Republican Southern Strategy shift (a not so silent majority, as the thunderous shift of former Democrats from the former slave states to the Republican Party and becoming a significant part of its base to date) that continues.

In fact, counter to Brett, it is criteria for finding overt racism as Brett and his ilk overreact to changing demographics.



Cruz won yet another debate with GOP voters.

I have to credit CNN last night. Their moderators ran a very substantive debate over foreign policy and immigration.

Are the Democrats even allowing a debate over foreign policy between the dowager queen-in-waiting who is too afraid to utter the words "islamic terrorism" and the crazy socialist uncle whose foreign policy is so isolationist that he avoids the subject altogether?

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) trolls his "Chuckles, the Clown" routine for Ted s.CRUZ. Yes, our own MRO swallows his leader, bait, hook, sinker and line, while on a magic carpet bombing run. Our own MRO provides a link to substantiate his claim. But apparently he ignores Frank Bruni in the NYTimes. Imagine as the Republican duo for 2016: CRAZY HAIR and CRAZY CARPET, (or vice versa).

"races are not already identically situated in every respect"

One reason being continual illicit racism as well as lingering effects of such illicit racism though the "both the rich and poor are not allowed to sleep under bridges and working to address the imbalances is classist" sentiments implied here is not required to avoid "racism."

At best, Brett is using hyperbole -- in today's society at least at times disparate impact is a real thing in the sense something we can and should try to address. But, in the context of voting, it doesn't really matter. The right to vote is protected for all and measures illegitimately (or unnecessarily) burdens various groups (including those the Constitution single out specifically for protection or generally so) and should be addressed.


ETA: "for all" means blacks and non-blacks ... to pre-emptively address non-voting aliens etc. though those not allowed to vote at this time is an excessively large group (e.g., those who completed their criminal sentences who continue to be disenfrancished).


I think the questions 1. are blacks, on average, less likely to have certain resources that are important to success in life and 2. if yes, what, if anything, should be done about that are separate ones. The answer to 1. can be yes without the answer to 2. being the kind of thing you're talking about.

My answer to 1. is, "Clearly, yes"; To 2. is it, "Plenty of things, privately, but racial discrimination by government is not among them."


Here's question 1A) to consider: Did the federal and state governments contribute to the "Yes" to Question 1 not only during slavery but also post-Reconstruction As via Jim Crow, remants of which are still with us? Might this insertion change Brett's answer to Question 2, as no doubt over those centuries whiles benefited from deprivations of African Americans? Nah, Brett was born on third base - but he has run the base path backwards since.


Which is a more accurate indicator of the sentiment of Republican voters, a panel of Republican voters or the NYT's Frank Bruni?

Think real hard now.

In any case, Cruz rarely gets caught in a mistake. In the two times I have seen him actually make an error (immigrant "legalization" and "carpet bombing"), Cruz has an attorney advocate's bad habit of attempting to argue through rather than admitting it. When arguing before a jury (the closest legal analogy to the electorate), it is better to admit and explain a problem. It makes you more believable.

"Here's question 1A) to consider: Did the federal and state governments contribute to the "Yes" to Question 1 not only during slavery but also post-Reconstruction As via Jim Crow, remants of which are still with us? Might this insertion change Brett's answer to Question 2"

I believe the federal government actually did contribute to the problem, not so much due to Jim Crow, (Which held down blacks, but left them culturally solid.) as with the "war on poverty", which they were uniquely situated to be harmed by. Cultural indicators such as unwed motherhood took an awful turn among all the groups that 'war' nominally aimed to help. Blacks were simply at ground zero, and so took the worst damage.

When you find your help is actually hurting, the best thing you can do is step back, and do no further harm. The federal government demonstrably does not know how to lift people up, and screws things up every time they try. They need to stand back and let blacks find their own way out of this cultural trap the government itself lured them into.

I'm confident they'll be able to do so, once the government stops "helping".

Our own MRO's (Macro 'Rhoidless One) "advice":

"Think real hard now."

is obviously something he does not do. Also, he share's the Ted s.CRUZ bad habit in spades. And our own MRO's comparison of jury argument with politics is absurd: politicians don't do that because they make seem weak to supporters. As to the sentiment of Republican voters, consider the continuing national support for Trump. How accurate is that?

But at least our own MRO seems to accept the Ted s.CRUZ error on "carpet bombing."

This comment has been removed by the author.

It is, no joke, informative when Brett puts his cards on the table and doesn't just make passing comments on one thing someone says.

I was about to say more but ... typos and stuff ... plus others, like Mr. W., have and said it better. Just to be clear, Jim Crow did a range of things that hurt the cultural integrity of blacks. But, Shag lived longer in the days of yore, so again, can say more on such "good [not as bad as all that] old days."


Trump is primarily appealing Americans alineated from the poltical process. These folks only vote sporadically, which is why Trump's numbers drop off significantly in the few polls which erect a likely voter screen. Trump has no ground campaign to get these alienated voters to the caucuses and polls.

Cruz's advantage is that his support is coming from the GOP base of likely voters and he also has the largest ground game in the GOP race to get out his marginal supporters. The Cruz campaign is liberally stealing techniques from the very effective Obamaa GOTV effort.

The Cruz campaign wants to use this GOTV appratus to get the Trump aliented voters out to the polls in the general election, but they are not relying on them during the primaries.

Yes, Joe, there's no question Jim Crow damaged blacks, as it was intended to. But, look at this chart.

When did the rate of unwed motherhood start skyrocketting? No, not during Jim Crow. During the war on poverty. The cultural status of blacks in America actually started rapidly deteriorating even as Jim Crow was beaten back!

Or look at incarceration rates. Again, the turn for the worse happend even as Jim Crow was phased out. But coincides nicely with the war on poverty.

No question, Jim Crow was bad for the black community. But it seems peculiar to blame on Jim Crow problems that got worse even as Jim Crow was being undone.

Checking out a couple charts is not going to clarify the complexities of over a century of racial history here.

You argued that Jim Crow was better in the scope of harm done than the "War on Poverty," the apex some years ago by now. Critiques of the imperfections of a time are best done with a bit more perspective.

You added that the feds doesn't know how to "lift up" people. I was going to include a long reply (including various ways, such as cutting elderly poverty by over a third) how this is wrong, but felt summarizing so much material was just not overly useful. And, typos and stuff.

There were loads of problems in the "no so much" Jim Crow days which you handwave aside ("yeah yeah bad ... but it's worse now") including specifically affected their "cultural solidity." The evils of Jim Crow poisoned their (and non-black) culture in various ways even if more people were married in the days of yore. Many of these evils over time -- along as for other groups (including whites) -- decreased with the help of governmental programs of various types.

What does those two markers you cite tell us? First, A RANGE OF THINGS affected them. For instance, the war on drugs is a major reason incarceration rates increased. Likewise, changing economic/technical developments did as did various cultural things (thus unwed rates went up to some major extent across board). A lot happened in society as a whole here in post-WWII America. Critique of the '60s are easy, especially with Vietnam, but one track mind mind approaches? Less so.

Let me add that "we the people" are involved here in various ways, including in respect to "the government," which is not merely a "them" but us. If you want to change things, best to know your enemy.

I'd add, as a historical note, the "can't lift up" people sentiment flies in the face of a range of ways governmental programs helped people from the days when cheap federal land, public funding of canals and railroads and a range of other things helped "lift" people up.

Lots of debate how exactly we should go about this -- e.g., some think vouchers in various cases would help, but even that includes a lot of government involvement in the process. The "keep your hands off my Medicare" crowd agrees in a range of ways but like the character in "Life of Brian," have a "besides all that what did the Romans do for us" mentality.


The combination of the progressive tax code and means tested welfare state generally compels people of all races who are or fall into poverty to remain under or unemployed. Once you are government dependent, you lose thousands of dollars in cash and benefits and get hit with taxes if you take a middle class job.

The combination of the progressive tax and welfare systems disproportionately trapped African Americans because government racial discrimination left them disproportionately impoverished.

Joe, I'll just repeat that final remark, as it says it all:

"But it seems peculiar to blame on Jim Crow problems that got worse even as Jim Crow was being undone."

The rate of unwed motherhood, a practical guarantee of continued poverty for mother AND child, skyrocketed as Jim Crow was phased out. TRIPLED! So how the hell can you blame it on Jim Crow?

Yeah, sure, maybe you think it was something besides the war on poverty. But racism didn't cause most of it's worst damage after the civil rights movement really started making progress. That's insane.

A lot was said, so to summarize and clarify, since one sentence for many of us doesn't "say it all."

I didn't blame the increase of unwed motherhood and incarceration on Jim Crow alone.

I noted, after your comment on culturally solid, that blacks were culturally harmed in a range of ways; so thought that comment misleading. Also, noted that the federal (and state) government, contra your generalization, can and did "lift up" people. Added a few examples, including elderly poverty greatly decreasing.

And, I noted a range of things factored into the two things you cited. I didn't say "it was something besides" - I (and a range of experts in the field) think various things, including stuff government related (spending on social programs factored in somehow, but so did the drug war etc., and how social programs should work is a big debate) was involved.

The wedlock chart suggests as much. WHITES and Hispanics have the greatest rate of increase here and it is a six-fold increase. On the whole. Not just for the poor. This suggests a range of things were involved. Incarceration rates also are complex. I'd add that during the old days punishment was also used, if not in the same way, in a way that affected a lot of blacks in particular.

Anyway, how racism factored into this is complicated, including lingering effects, structural racism, racism reflected by selective concern about non-blacks that you might not consider racism etc. It is not that racism is "worst" now. That isn't the argument. It is that it continues in various ways & that certain groups continue -- for various reasons -- to be disproportionately burdened. This isn't fictional. And, it is okay for the government to do various things to address it though in many cases -- like voting -- the best approach helps a lot more than blacks.


Brett and Bart,

Take a look at the data presented in table 2 here:

Scroll down to the black poverty rates. You'll see that it was 55% in 1959, but by 1966 had fallen to 42%, and by 1970 fell down to 33%. So during the period you're highlighting, when Jim Crow was falling, government assistance was increasing and unwed mothering shot up, there were less and less blacks in poverty.

I should just leave the debate with the Killer Bs to Mr. W, but recently, he seems to have gotten a bit tired of them, so you know, try to do my part.

And that is interesting, Mr. W, because at this point 72% of blacks are born out of wedlock, which is very highly correlated with poverty. And yet, most blacks are not poor. How do we square this?

It's not "blacks" who have the problem. There's a subculture that has a problem, and blacks are over-represented within it. But those blacks who aren't members are doing fine.

That's the point: It's not about your color, it's about your culture, your behavior. Blacks can do well in America if they are not aculturated to having destructive values.

The problem for the future, is that the blacks who are doing well aren't having that many children! The future belongs to those who reproduce. And 72% of blacks are born to unwed mothers. Do you think they're going to be doing well?

Mr. W:

Your link confirmed what I posted about the impoverishing effect of government racial discrimination.

African Americans remain disproportionately trapped in government dependence and poverty for the reasons I posted.

I find it amazing how many lawyers evaluate Cruz based on his legal skills. Who cares?

Being good at arguing in a formal structure like a courtroom or a debating contest has zero to do with his qualifications or ability to serve as President.

The fact is that Cruz is an exceptionally ignorant, deluded individual. He's no genius, law school grades notwithstanding. This is a man who thinks:

1. We have a major inflation problem and should go on the gold standard to solve it.
2. Climate change is a hoax. Note that he is not merely skeptical of the evidence. He thinks there is an actual hoax being perpetrated. This is close to clinical paranoia.
3. It is possible to "carpet-bomb" ISIS without killing innocent civilians. This is literal madness.

In other words, he might be the finest lawyer since Portia, but that wouldn't change the fact that on actual issues he would dal with as President, he is a raving lunatic.

Another way to say this is that lawyers need to think about matters other than legal skill when evaluating Cruz, or any other candidate.

Last Thursday after "inserting" a suggested Question 1A twixt Mr. W's Questions 1 and 2, I was "hors de liberal lunch (some progressives)" and upon my return to Balkinization learned that Brett was purporting to be a scholar on cultural values of Blacks. I had assumed that Brett, reared in a racist section of Northern Michigan, might be knowledgable of that culture's obsession with the great migration that included the Detroit area; that he was knowledgable of the redneck bubba cultural values with his migration to a former slave state; and of his knowledge of the cultural impacts upon divorced white males and their suicide rates. But Brett's profession of creds on Black cultural values is merely an attempt to use the redneck bubba playbook on racial codes, e.g., racial revisionism.

The Social Sciences address seriously the subject of culture, including the relationship of culture and survival. Lots of credible studies on the subject of culture are available by Googling. Those with no exposure to cultural studies might check this out to demonstrate that Brett is cherry-picking to make his biases (putting it mildly) known.

Now perhaps Brett is up on the White Supremacy gun culture, as he is not only a self-proclaimed anarcho libertarian but also a 2nd A absolutist. Just what are the goals of that culture that sometimes dines on machine gun bacon?

No, Brett ignores the long, long history of racism, going back to a couple of centuries of slavery, including for about 80 years under the Constitution and then Jim Crow after the Reconstruction Amendments, and the civil rights movement pushed by Brown v. Bd., the Civil Rights Acts of the mid '60s, with remnants of Jim Crow still around post-Obama.

Survival has spearheaded Black culture, in response to limitations imposed by both federal and state governments. (As Joe pointed out, Brett's "response" to my Question 1A failed to address the states.) This survival is what is disturbing to Brett and his ilk. Imagine the nerve of those Blacks, we give them all that sour lemon juice and they make sweet lemonade! Oh, those nagging changing demographics. But Brett may take solace that his young mixed race son may provide protective cover.

Perhaps Brett should rent the movie "Watermelon Man" for some perspective.

Ted Cruz's legal career is important since it is a key aspect of his biography. As to what he "thinks," one factor here is that he repeatedly -- see his immigration bill poison pill maneuver which he assured people on the record was a serous effort -- is a b.s. artist. Given his career, one figures he is generally conservative, but what he says is not always what he probably "thinks." FWIW.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Yes, but I don't think that it tells us much about how good a President he would be. It's a specialized skill that has little to do, I think, with making intelligent policy or decisions as President.

As to what he thinks, well, I'm no mind-reader. I take him at his word. He's switched around on some things, but I'm not sure he's a bigger bs'er in general than most politicians. The things I mentioned appear to be positions he has held consistently.

This comment has been removed by the author.

I'm going to stop trying to respond to Brett -- encouraging too many typos.

Somewhat degree with toad -- it to me is useful to look at a person's pre-presidential career there. Now, it might be said that the career here isn't that useful. He might, e.g., have a better skill-set as an attorney general, lower court judge or solicitor general. Executing the law does involve some of what he did for a living though. But, the specific thing? Law clerk memorandum? Not very useful.

The "take them at their word" advice also is fairly useful, but I do think Cruz has a certain b.s. skill set. This might be deemed merely what politicians do. Cruz to me seems to have a certain skill though at selectively selling himself to the base. This might just make him good at his job, which involves bs-ing. I'm okay with saying this isn't really what we should worry about.

BS'ing is one thing.

Advocating seriously lunatic policies as part of your core platform is something else.

byomtov: 1. We have a major inflation problem and should go on the gold standard to solve it.

Cruz observed that the Fed should get out of the business of creating fiat money to 'juice the economy' and focus solely on maintaining a sound currency, 'preferably tied to gold.' The first observation is undeniably correct. Fed QE has created a stock market bubble which is completely detached from our depressed economy and the inevitable correction is going to harm tens of millions of Americans. We can argue over the best means to stop the Fed from manufacturing funny money. A gold standard can work, but it is awkward.

2. Climate change is a hoax. Note that he is not merely skeptical of the evidence. He thinks there is an actual hoax being perpetrated. This is close to clinical paranoia.

This claim is probably coming from Ted Cruz's eviscerating cross examination of the Sierra Club president, Aarron Mair, during a Senate hearing on the evidence being offered to support the hypothesis of manmade global warming (not the intentionally misleading propaganda term climate change). This is an excellent example of how a skilled lawyer uses cross examination to destroy the credibility of those making demonstrably false assertions.

3. It is possible to "carpet-bomb" ISIS without killing innocent civilians. This is literal madness

Cruz mistakenly uses the term "carpet bomb" to refer to a large number of sorties like that of the Gulf and Iraq Wars rather than the general geographical bombing to which this term is generally applied. Cruz never claimed that a higher tempo bombing would not kill nearby civilians, but rather that such a tempo is necessary for the bombing to be effective in destroying ISIS targets. In this Cruz is correct. The Obama administration's refusal to allow the completion of bombing sorties when there is a risk of civilian casualties has rendered his air campaign ineffective.

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) continues to swallow his leader, Ted x.CRUZ.

Cruz observed that the Fed should get out of the business of creating fiat money to 'juice the economy' and focus solely on maintaining a sound currency, 'preferably tied to gold.' The first observation is undeniably correct.

No. It's not even remotely correct. Don't trust me. Go read Milton Friedman.

A gold standard can work, but it is awkward.

Awkward?? It's a depression-maker.

This claim is probably coming from ...

I don't care where it's coming from. It's paranoid regardless. I haven't seen the "eviscerating" cross-examination but it doesn't matter. He questioned one individual, who is not a climate scientist, and basically just bullied him. Good cross-examination? Good PR for Cruz? Maybe. But so what? Again, just because Cruz is good at making an argument, or harassing a Senate witness, doesn't mean he knows anything. In fact, your comment, , with its reference to a "demonstarbly false assertion." tells us that neither he nor you are actually interested in the science.

Cruz mistakenly uses the term "carpet bomb"

Maybe he should learn what it means before using it. Or is that asking too much? Besides, he talks about making the sand glow. That doesn't sound like he is being selective. It was clear that, on the one hand he absolutely didn't care about civilian casualties and on the other. Does Obama care about them? Yes, and it's not only correct to do so, but also wise. Why create more terrorists? Cruz tells us, "You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city," but what if they are in a city? Nice dodge for a courtroom. Not so much for real life.

Ted s.CRUZ did not admit he made a mistake when questioned at the debate on his "carpet bombing." Rather Ted s.CRUZ did a Humpty Dumpty on what he meant by "carpet bombing."

“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.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

So our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) tries to provide cover for Ted s.CRUZ as his troll at this Blog.


1) Friedman won his Nobel for his work demonstrating the dangers of monetary inflation and deflation. Monetarism is all about maintaining a sound currency.

2) The gold standard did not create the Great Depression. The new Fed had created its second inflation in 15 years and raised interest rates to slow it down the same time Hoover started a trade war with the Smoot Hawley tariff. Banks started failing. THAT started the depression.

3) Cross examining scientists is easy and fun. Finding one that actually knows his subject and can convincingly defend his position under opposing cross is difficult. Climatologists do not challenge one another's work in genuine peer review. When outsiders request their data, climatologists hide it and stonewall. The British MET and now the American NOAA stonewalled. Under cross examination, there is nowhere to hide.



Friedman, like every other economist who knows anything, was in favor of monetary expansion to counter downturns. Monetarism is not "all about maintaining a sound currency." you are talking nonsense.

I didn't say the gold standard caused the Great Depression. I said it causes depressions. Look at history. It is worth noting that getting off gold helped countries recover. The sooner they got off the quicker they recovered.

Bluntly, you have no idea what you are talking about and would do well to stop.

I'm sure cross-examining scientists is easy and fun. Finding it difficult to defend one's work when being badgered by an a$$hole doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you are being badgered and don't respond well, possibly because the cross-examiner is not really interested in getting at facts.

This is exactly my complaint. Being good at harassing witnesses says nothing about any other skills or knowledge you have. Being a good lawyer is a specialized skill that implies very little about your ability to be a good office-holder, outside of legal or judiciary posts of course.

Climatologists do challenge one another. That's what academics do. The notion that it takes lawyers who for the most part know no science or math to get at the facts on a scientific question is ridiculous.

3) Cross examining scientists is easy and fun.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:58 PM

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


Blankshot, you're a fucking imbecile.

Our own MRO's (Macro 'Rhoidless One):

"Cross examining scientists is easy and fun. "

should be considered in the context of his personal claim of being the top legal dog in his mountaintop community on DUI matters. Imagine his "successes" in cross-examination on scientific grounds the technology involved while trolling at this and other Blogs, now for Ted s.CRUZ. Earlier in this thread I had commented on successful lawyers and the presidency in modern times (i.e., since my birth in 1930). Our own MRO conceded (although that's not worth much) that America has had a successful lawyer as President. But that's the central piece for our own MRO's claims for Ted s.CRUZ. Perhaps our own MRO is enthralled with what he believes are his own skills at cross examination; alas, his comments at this Blog over the years suggest otherwise. Maybe that's why he confines himself to his small mountaintop community in his Mile Hight State (of mind), claiming to be the top legal dog. [I can hear the laughter from his "competitors.")


Have you ever tried a case and conducted cross of experts?

I thought not.

I have no need to call myself the "top dog" of anything. My work speaks for itself. I barely advertise because almost all my clients come from word of mouth.

Did you ever bring in your own clients?

I thought not.

Those who can't, criticize.

Friedman demonstrates the difference between, "This policy would be superior if competently administered", and "This policy will be superior as administered by the people who will actually be in charge".

The point of the gold standard isn't that it works better than a fiat currency administered by a dispassionate genius polymath with perfect information who is immune to political pressure.

The point is that such people are never the ones in charge of a fiat currency.

Even free market economists can be vulnerable to the mistake of advocating policies that only work well if the right people are administering them, in a world where the right people won't be administering them.


Monetary expansion has never created economic growth. Easy money/credit only causes financial bubbles, poor capital investment and/or general inflation.

A depression is a recession without a recovery. A money supply fixed to a gold reserve does not cause depressions. Such systems tend to cause slow deflation if the government does not grow the gold supply with GDP.

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) asks questions of me and provides his own answers. Here are my answers:

1. Yes, over the years of my practice, beginning in 1954, I have tried cases and cross examined experts.

2. My practice started well before lawyers could advertise. I never advertised. I "brought in" most of my clients and some came in via lawyer referrals for specialty reasons.

DUI practices are a lowly form of a criminal law practice, with few cases tried, with reliance on plea deals, usually because of"short money" and weak defenses. I wonder if our own MRO has tried many of his DUI cases before a jury?

As to my "top dog" reference, that 's based on comments our MRO has made at Blogs on his status in his mountaintop community and noting disclosures of his advertising, and other forms of self-promotion via the Internet. I did not have to engage in such self-promotion. And at this Blog, he weakly attempts self promotion beyond his ken in law, economics, history, finance, and a myriad of areas, serving now as a troll for Ted s.CRUZ. With all the time he spends at this and other blogs, how much time does he have to practice real law? In my meat and salad days, the Internet was not in existence or in its infancy. But I would not have had the time to get into it as does our MRO, having a busy law practice. Our own MRO is a troll, perhaps frustrated with a hum-drum DUI practice. As to our own MRO's:

"Those who can't, criticize."

that describes him and his commentary at this Blog. His screeds here over the years speak for themselves.


You don't have to manage monetary policy absolutely perfectly to do better than the gold standard. You only need to do better than a system that is not only random, but is biased towards bad outcomes. Besides, if you don't trust government to manage the currency, then why do you trust it to saty on the gold standard when it produces the inevitable crises?


You continue to entangle yourself and stumble over your own ignorance.

Monetary expansion has never created economic growth.

Monetary expansion is necessary for economic growth. As the economy grows, it needs more money, period. This is grade school economics.

A money supply fixed to a gold reserve does not cause depressions. Such systems tend to cause slow deflation if the government does not grow the gold supply with GDP.

How exactly does the government grow the gold supply? And if it can arbitrarily increase the gold supply what's the difference between that and increasing the supply in other ways?

Here is Greg Mankiw, no radical leftist:

As to the Fed announcing a commitment to a moderate amount of inflation, let me point out that according to many macroeconomic historians, the abandonment of the gold standard was the most useful thing that the federal government did to get the country out of the Great Depression. A commitment to producing a moderate amount of inflation would be the modern equivalent of that act.

Apparently you've read some nonsense and been convinced by it. I'm tired of spending time trying ti deal with the idiocy. Have a nice holiday.

Bart, watching you get crushed never gets old.


This should be fun...

Why precisely is a growing money supply necessary for economic growth?

The US had a gold standard and slow deflation over its first century and has the highest sustained GDP growth in human history.

Congress grow the gold reserve by buying more gold.

The progressive Fed ignored the gold standard since its creation in 1913 and created one hyperinflation during WWI and another lesser inflation in the 1920s, before causing a deflation during the 1930-32 recession. FDR took the US off what was left of the gold standard in 1933. The Depression lasted for years afterward.

It's getting worse.

A growing money supply is needed because as the economy grows there are more transactions, hence more transaction demand for money. More goods are bought, more investments made. If the money supply doesn't grow you get deflation, as prices fall, and that destroys the economy, because nobody spends money on anything. Why invest in production capability, when the relative price of your output is going to be lower when it sells? Why borrow money when you are going to have to pay it back in more expensive dollars?

The government gets more gold by buying it????

From who? You seem to think the government can just buy as much as it wants at the price it fixes (gold standard, remember). No it can't. Ever heard of supply and demand? And suppose it could. Suppose it had a gold manufacturing machine. Then how would gold be different from fiat money? Manufacturing gold would just be the equivalent of printing money.

You are embarrassing yourself really badly.


Congress grow the gold reserve by buying more gold.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 4:08 PM

Not true. There is always alchemy...

You are embarrassing yourself really badly.

# posted by Blogger toad : 4:36 PM

That is Baghdad Bart's MO.

This comment has been removed by the author.


You are repeating Keynesian and progressive dogma and have no clue about our monetary history.

We had a gold standard from the Coinage Act of 1793 until Congress made the disastorous decision to go to a hybrid gold and silver system in the 1890s. There was a slight deflation during this period, but the GDP boomed and consumers spent freely.

Here is a clue. A mild deflation only harms debtors who end up paying more under fixed rate lending agreements. Mild deflation (and inflation) has no effect on consumer spending.

We had a massive deflation only twice in our history - the 1920 recession and the 1930-32 recesssion - and both were caused by the Fed, not the gold standard. The 1920 deflation and recession was short lived because Harding/Coolidge reversed the progressive policies which caused the recession. The 1930-32 recession turned into a depression because of Hoover's and FDR's progressive misgovernance.

Gold is a commodity and, yes, Congress can and did buy our gold reserves. Did you think we filled Fort Knox from a gold tree?

You are now past embarrassing yourself.

Yes, Congress can buy gold, as I said. But not a price Congress sets. The price depends on what's available.

Keynesian dogma? WTF? Is that your response on the money supply? That's what you think about a universally accepted - left, right, and middle, principle. Tell me. What happens when population grows? Doesn't the money supply need to grow? As the volume of transactions grows doesn't the money supply need to grow? Your position is pure idiocy.

Deflation "only" harms debtors? You mean people who might borrow money to start businesses, buy durable goods, and so on. It doesn't affect consumers? You're nuts.

Bart. I'm done here. You know less than Ted Cruz'. I would say you are just making stuff up, but I don't think you know enough to do that. Go cross-examine someone.

This comment has been removed by the author.

This comment has been removed by the author.


Because the money is supposed to be a proxy for the goods and services the economy produces (not population), an ideal monetary system would peg the money supply to the GDP.

Your position is not universal, it is Keynesian and progressive and contrary to monetarist and Austrian economic theory, not to mention the facts.

Deflation increases the value of the money debtors owe on fixed term loan agreements and thus harms creditors. This was the primary reason Congress shifted to a cheaper silver standard in the late 19th century and then went to a pure paper money system in the early 20th century.

Deflation only affects consumers if it changes their effective income and purchasing power. So long as employers adjust compensation to conform with the deflation, nothing really changes for consumers.

Bart at 6:55 "deflation only harms debtors"

Bart at 5:40 "Deflation increases the value of the money debtors owe on fixed term loan agreements and thus harms creditors"

There strikes me that there's some tension there...

"universally accepted - left, right, and middle, principle"

toad, I'm afraid for many folks like Bart broad consensuses of experts on anything from climate change to economics is just proof of how deep the conspiracy really is...

"We had a massive deflation only twice in our history - the 1920 recession and the 1930-32 recesssion - and both were caused by the Fed"

"The 1920 deflation and recession was short lived because Harding/Coolidge reversed the progressive policies which caused the recession. "

So was it the Fed that caused the 1920 depression or 'progressive policies' which the executive could roll back?

Also, you cite the Smoot Hawley tariff as a cause of the Depression. A major response to the recession of 1920 by the Harding administration was two major tariff increase acts.


Mr. W:

Just a little bit of tension. That typo is what I get for drinking, watching a losing football game and blogging at the same time while on vacation in New Orleans. The harm of deflation falls on debtors and not creditors.

The 1920 recession was caused by three major progressive misgovernances: (1) a massive increase in the income tax, (2) a gross misdirection of the economy during WWI, and (3) the new progressive Fed creating a hyper inflation by paying for most of WWI by printing money followed by a sharp deflation to correct the hyper inflation. The Fed finished its correction before the end of the recession. A newly elected GOP government reversed the first two misdirections.

The 1930-1932 recession was caused by similar progressive misgovernance: (1) a fair trade tariff causing a trade war which destroyed our export economy, (2) the Fed trying to correct a monetary inflation by reducing the money supply just as the banks holding export business debt needed liquidity, (3) the governement strong arming business into maintaining or increasing employee compensation when busienss revenues to pay for that compensation were collapsing, and (4) a massive increase in the income tax and government spending to pay for a "stimulus" package of public works spending. Instead of reversing this misgovernnance, FDR doubled down on it and turned a recession into America's largest and longest depression.

Alas, didn't New Orleans suffer enough from the ill winds of Katrina? Our own MRO's (Macro 'Rhoidless One) attempts to inflate his ego with mishistory of 1920 and 1930-32 in his Humpty-Dumpty deflation efforts are not inflating but flatulating. Note this:

"The 1930-1932 recession was caused by similar progressive misgovernance:"

Note our own MRO avoids the word "depression" but employs "progressive." Who was President in those years? Who were the Presidents for the 8 prior years? Were they "progressives"? In order, they were Republicans Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. And their policies through the Roaring Twenties dumped the Great Depression on the lap of Democrat FDR. (Comparative: 8 years of Busn/Cheney ending with its 2007-8 Great Recession was dumped on Democrat Obama in 2009.) Our own MRO ignores the events that occurred BEFORE March of 1933 when FDR was inaugurated.

But what better can we expect of our own MRO who still believes The Gilded Age of the late 19th century were America's best days. Our own MRO's travels from his Mile High State (of mind) to below sea level in NO seems to have given him the bends or BUI (blogging under the influence). So intense is our own MRO's trolling for Ted s.CRUZ at this Blog that he continues to cast out his crapola even when on vacation.


Hoover led the progressive wing of the GOP and his fair trade, wage, taxing and spending policies are classic progressivism.

Hoover was Sec Commerce during the 1920 recession and suggested the same policies. Harding and later Coolidge ignored him and massively cut taxing and spending. The economy grew at its highest rate since the laissez faire era.

So our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) blames Hoover for the 1920 recession, identifying Hoover as a progressive? What about the glorious Roaring Twenties with Harding, sex and Coolidge for 8 years (1921-29). Were they also progressives? The Crash of '29 occurred early in Hoover's Administration. What progressive things did Hoover between his inauguration in March of '29 and and October of '29 to bring about the 1930-32 recession (aka the Great Depression)?

As to the growth alleged by our own MRO, who were the major beneficiaries of those Roaring Twenties? When it comes to history, our own MRO has his head up his derriere.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Hillary should apologize to Trump as he is the second best ISIS recruiter as #1 is Ted (carpet bomber) s.CRUZ And our own MRO wants to be his co-pilot.


The Roaring 20s saw a technological revolution as the nation electrified, a sharp increase in productivity and generally increasing prosperity. The American middle class became a significant part of the population during this period.

Fed easy money policies goosed the stock markets in the late 20s. The 1929 correction occurred when the Fed started raising interest rates again. None of this caused the depression. In fact, the stock market largely recovered by January 1930. The subsequent collapse of the markets were a result of the progressive recession.

If Shag thinks someone is a "troll," the person must be getting mighty chubby given how much "feeding" is being done.

Spam translation:

"BREAKING NEWS: 'In ways cosmetic and substantive, Ted Cruz has in recent days seemed to more closely resemble the man he has been chasing, Donald J. Trump.' NYTimes."


The more interesting part of your NYT article is how Cruz is using Obama social media data techniques combined with a ground campaign to get Trump supporters to his rallies across the SEC primary states.

Trump has no GOTV apparatus worth speaking of.

Per the "sure Trump is wrong, but he's just a response to no one being right" sentiment:

"When one character objects that the rest of the crew are mangling the words to a carol, the response comes back: “Who listens to the words?”

My translator has the spam - spam spam spam - selling cleaning products. Got to get that thing fixed.

You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why

Cruz is coming to town
He is good at peeping
He is good at keeping the base awake
He knows how to be bad and you'd
figure base would take.

Happy Holidays!

Joe's "Santa Cruz Is Coming To Town" needs a rewrite. He's more "Satan Cruz." Trump is campaigning with "Me and My Shadow" who originally was Dr. Ben (there-done-that - separated Siamese Twins) and now it's Ted s.CRUZ. If the shadow moves on his own, Trump will pounce and then "Change Partners and Dance ...." A new TV reality show is in the works,"Dancing with the Clowns." Trump will "poll" dance his way to the nomination with "Putin on the Ritz." Ted will reCRUZ himself and take a sabbatical at Rick Perry's Ranch.

Sandy has posted his response to the commenters at Cato. I've downloaded it and plan to read it tomorrow AM. Perhaps Sandy will post here on his response so the usual suspects may comment here rather than at Cato. Sesame Street might call this "DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION." Will it continue through the 2016 campaign? The responses to Sandy's essay hainteresting titles. Sandy's response is titled "In Search of Golilocks Points." So perhaps the crisis Sandy is concerned with is not a Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling!" moment. But then there's Trump and/or Cruz.

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." Archimedes

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) attempts to utilize his smartphone as a lever of knowledge on the Roaring Twenties but only cherry-picks, a feeble form of "law office" research. Sure, there were technological advances in the Roaring Twenties, as there were back in The Gilded Age. Sure, a middle class of significance was developing in the Roaring Twenties. That's progress in action in a growing society. Alas, there were significant numbers of immigrants and farmers who were not faring well in the Roaring Twenties. And then there was the significant rise in KKK activities during the Roaring Twenties accentuating the ills of Jim Crow inflicted upon African-Americans especially in the former slave states. Does our MRO credit the laissez-faire era of Harding/Coolidge for all this? What our own MRO attempts is to gloss over - ignore - facts/events that do not fit his screeds of hatred. Keep in mind his hyperbolic suggestion of armed revolution as an alternative response to the current political dysfunction. He is a troll advocating his hatred at this Blog as his own blog fails to attract attention. Our own MRO has an extensive "paperP trail of comments at this Blog over the years demonstrating his many biases. While our own MRO may be getting "chubby," it does not make him believable.


A closed mind is a terrible thing.

Remind me when I get back from vacation in January and I will give you a reading list on the 1920 recession, the Roaring 20s and the Great Depression.

Once again, the folks who supported Jim Crow during this period were all progressive Democrats. Woodrow Wilson was arguably the most racist president of the 20th century and presided over a surge of Democrat lynching terrorism.

I'm a distance second to Shag the poet with his Borscht Belt roots. But, I try.


Just who were the progressives during the Harding/Coolidge Roaring Twenties, a laissez fair era, that contributed to the KKK activities that increased during that time? Wilson was no longer in power. And exactly what steps did Harding/Coolidge take to stop the lynchings? There was more to the Roaring Twenties than Flappers and the Jazz Age.

Speaking of closed minds, our our MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) is locked into The Gilded Age of the late 19th century as America's best days (with perhaps the Roaring Twenties as second best?). Perhaps he thinks Ted s.CRUZ will take us back there.

Note that our own MRO fails to address the plight of immigrants and farmers during the Roaring Twenties. Cherry picking continued.

I trust our own MRO, aka Jumbo Liar, will enjoy some jambalaya while walking the walk of Homer Plessy.

The GOP Congress attempted to enact anti- lynching bills starting in 1918 to halt this Democrat terrorism, but the Democrats blocked and then filibustered them.

To what plight are you referring?


1918 was not part of the Roarding Twenties, during which period the KKK rose to great numbers adding to the plight of African-Americans during the Roaring Twenties with Harding/Coolidge and laissez-faire.

Query: is our own MRO's (Macro 'Rhoidless One) macho CRUZAFFECTION mutual? Check this out at the Huffington Post:

It seems that both our MRO and Ted s.CRUZ share the same economic views on the gold standard. [I wonder if our own MRO is adorned with bling on his New Orleans vacation?] And here at this Blog we know how well versed [NOT] he is on economics. Our own MRO is not a GILDED SAGE. For his sake (but more so, the sake of others) I trust he's not absinthe-minded.

Channeling BB:

"These polls are great for Ted s.CRUZ!"

Maybe, some Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz law clerk memoranda can help his poll numbers.


There just might be a law clerk Cruz memo that says Plessy is good law, channeling his Chief's stint as a law clerk. (Some might call such brownnosing..")


Democrat terrorist lynchings rose during the racist Wilson administraton. In response, the GOP worked to enact anti-lynching legislation, but the racist progressive Democrats blocked every bill.

Here is a primer on polling for you from the geeks at the progressive


Our own MRO continues to ignore the rise of the KKK DURING THE ROARING TWENTIES LAISSEZ-FAIRE DAYS OF HARDING/COOLIDGE. Were Harding/Coolidge progressives? And of course our own MRO continues to ignore the situation of the many immigrants and farmers DURING THE ROARING TWENTIES LAISSEZ-FAIR DAYS OF HARDING/COOLIDGE, who, alas, were not part of the then rising middle class.


What part of Democrat Congress critters defending Democrat KKK terrorism, which started rising during a Democrat administration are you unable to understand?

Not a single limited government Republican involved.

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) continues to avoid the timeline of the Roaring Twenties with Harding/Coolidge for 8 of those years, both Republicans, with the increase in KKK activities. Perhaps our own MRO is three sheets to the wind while blogging under the influence. During the Roaring Twenties, what steps did Harding/Coolidge take to stop the KKK from its activities?

"The 1920 recession was caused by three major progressive misgovernances: (1) a massive increase in the income tax, (2) a gross misdirection of the economy during WWI, and (3) the new progressive Fed creating a hyper inflation by paying for most of WWI by printing money followed by a sharp deflation to correct the hyper inflation. The Fed finished its correction before the end of the recession. A newly elected GOP government reversed the first two misdirections."

The recession ended in the Summer of 21, Harding signed the proposed tax cut in November of the same year. One thing he did sign before the end of the recession was....a big tariff increase (signed in May).

Austrian economics always strikes me as a bunch of just-so stories and cherry picking.

I actually agree, partly, with Bart about the KKK. The KKK was strongest in the South which was at the time rather solidly Democratic (though there were notable exceptions, such as Indiana). They weren't very strong in other places Democrats did well, such as northern urban centers. It seems it was more about geography than party. Which makes one ask, which geographical region draws most its strength from the South now?

Mr. W:

The Austrian school reforms during the 1920 recession (what Keynesians call "austerity" today) were reversing the misdirection of the economy, slashing the size of government by over half and reversing the Fed inflation.

The subsequent income tax reforms were one of the historical examples of supply side theory.

Tariffs were not part of either school. The Austrians believe in free trade.

Whenever a clueless progressive argues that "austerity" slows an economy, offer the 1920 recession (as well as the 1946 and I think 1953 spending cuts) to debunk that nonsense.

Yes, the KKK was indeed strongest in the South, including during the Roaring Twenties as KKK activities increased. The South was not an insignificant section of America. There were many African-Americans living under Jim Crow in the South. There were many farmers living in the South. Yes, the South back then was Democrat. But political parties change over time and are not monolithic over America's history, especially as to Democrats and Republicans. Mr. W closes with a question, rhetorical, the answere to which I have been stressing in comments at this Blog of late, the shift of Democrats from the former slave states to the Republican Party starting with Brown v. Bd. (1954), continuing during the civil rights movement, the Civil Rights Acts of the mid 1960s, Tricky Dick Nixon's Southern Strategy with his '68 presidential campaign, continued by Saint Reagan and even more than a tad by George H.W. Bush, and currently a core of the 2016 GOP presidential candidates catering to that converted base of the GOP in the former slave states, including the plan of Ted s.CRUZ as a candidate.

Our own MRO in lauding the Roaring Twenties with technology driving a growing middle class cherry-picks by ignoring the plight of immigrants, farmers, African-Americans, who were not part of that middle class. Our own MRO looks back for what he considers glorious time, in particular The Gilded Age of the late 19th century and the romance of the Roaring Twentiesl of 8 years of Republicans Harding/Coolidge, dumping on Republican Hoover with what resulted in the Crash of '29, recession and depression dumped on FDR with the '32 election.

To cement the point to Mr. W's rhetorical question (since we all know the answer), today's Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party of Lincoln (which historically faded in the late 19th century as the focus was on capturing new states for Republicans). And the Democratic Party of Wilson has long not been the Democratic Party of today. Our own MRO dwells in the past, not his personal past. We are not going to go back to what he calls America's best days, despite his CRUZAFFLICTION. The words of the WaPo's Dana Milbank on Donald Trump can be applied to our own MRO: "Oy vey iz mir! What a putz!"

This comment has been removed by the author.


The unavoidable differences between the two parties representing the South are that the Democrats imposed government racial discrimination and supported KKK terrorism, while the GOP opposed and worked to reverse both. You cannot escape the fact that the Democrats have been the party of racial discrimination since their formation and they are still the only party attempting to impose racial discrimination today.

I have been waiting for you to actually state what the problems were with farmers during the 1920s that you think the government should have solved. Since you have not and may not even be aware of them, let me guess. Agriculture was producing more food than the American and world markets were willing to consume. As a result farms started failing and their owners and employees went on to work in other parts of the economy producing things consumers wanted. This is a good thing.

In contrast, the New Deal Agricultural Adjustment Act looted taxpayers and food consumers by paying farmers and ranchers to reduce their production and raise prices. This has been a very, very bad thing.


I was looking at the new autobiography by Sen. Amy Klobuchar and she cited a somewhat amusing moment where Sen. Cruz held up his colleagues at the end of the year to force a weekend message vote on immigration. The Democrats used the time to confirm more Obama appointees in the final days of their control of the Senate.


Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One)) feebly avoids timeframes for the first sentence of his most recent comment. Just when did the GOP of the South oppose government racial discrimination and work to reverse KKK terrorism?

So farmers voted with their feet during the Roaring Twenties? Or did that come about during the Dust Bowl droughts of the 1930s as a perfect storm with the Great Depression dumped on FDR's lap by Republican Hoover, who inherited crapola from Harding/Coolidge?

Our own MRO continues romancing the past, a past that he did not personally live, that is not in our future. He cannot keep track of timeframes. In his current environs he's maraschino cherry picking.

Mr. W. as his wont gets to the the kernel of things -- the issue here is regional AND a matter of time. The discussion reminds me of this article cited by Election Law Blog:

Party is not constant. There were efforts by Republicans against racial discrimination & this is why, e.g., Jackie Robinson supported Republicans, though he switched allegiance after the Goldwater/Nixon developments in the mid and late 1960s. There is even some remaining support in the Republican Party today such as Rep. Sensenbrenner continuing to support the Voting Rights Act even after Shelby County v. Holder. But, party did change there as symbolized by Strom Thurmond's conversion from Democrat to Republican.

The article starts with a historical lesson involving the Republicans supporting racial justice in the late 19th Century but eventually moving on as the political winds changed. The context is North Carolina. There remained some efforts in that department and if we don't go "maraschino cherry picking," it can be an informative look at how sanity continues to reign even in dark times.

For instance, Warren Harding did get significant votes from the South and spoke in support of civil rights. Harding was from Ohio (though the Klan did have support in the Midwest at this point), but Leonidas C. Dyer (R) was from Missouri and supported an anti-lynching law. This is not to oversell the support -- regional Republicans still had to get votes from a generally racist population and blacks were widely disenfranchised -- but they had their moments. But, then, so did local Democrats, who still had to in some fashion address the needs of a significant portion of their population.

But, even there, as Shag and others saw in action, the parties developed over time and the party that once opposed the ratification of the 13th Amendment eventually supported racial justice led by LBJ. This led to a party realignment, the "Southern strategy" and so forth.


The GOP Congress with support by President Harding attempted to enact Re. Dyer's bill making lynching a federal felony crime, but the Democrats filibustered the bill. Indeed, the Democrats blocked nearly 200 anti-lynching bills in all and kept Congress from ever acting.

Johnson only passed the VRA and CRA with GOP votes. The few GOP dissents were concerned with the constiutionality of individual provisions, not from the proposition of eliminating Democrat discrimination against African Americans.

The GOP position did not change because of geography or time. The party has always opposed government racial discrimination.

The Democrat position changed over time with the composition of its electorate. As the African American vote shifted to and the white vote shifted away from the Democrats, the party of racism shifted its support of government and private racial preferences from those for whites to those for African Americans.

Our own MRO processes his comments standing on his head. He seems to be suggesting that Democrats discriminate against him, with his multiple ethnicities, most of which may be white. All this from our own MRO's coloring book of mishistory. Once again, to quote Dana Milbank: "Oy vey iz mir! What a putz!"

This article about the GOP contribution to the passage of the Civil Rights bill might be interesting to some given the conversation:

"it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act."

Also, more on the 'just so' nature of Austrian economic explanations. Consider this article from the libertarian friendly Cato Institute. It shows that while the administrations Bart lauds did indeed bring government down from where it was in 1920 that they kept it larger than it had been in 1915.

"The “normalcy” of the 1920s incorporated considerably higher levels of federal spending and taxes than the Progressive era before World War I."

So, you have a low level of government spending and taxation, then a very high level, then a level that is higher than the first, lower than the second. As Bart has repeatedly pointed to the last phase as exemplary, what is one to conclude? That spending/taxation somewhere below quite high but somewhere above quite low is ideal? No, it can't be's just that I suspect Bart, good Austrian he, just cherry picks two points, one with higher government and prosperity than the other, and tries to draw a lesson from this pick of the cherry. But when one zooms the lens of focus out a bit wider you see something much more complicated than the simplistic 'just so' story we've been presented with.


In other words, the filibuster of Dyer's bill was by the forerunners of today's GOP.

And for another view of the 1920-21 recession, se here.

That's all.


Krugman knows nothing about the causes of the "1920 depression," but then again ignorance has never stopped him from opining on any subject before.

To deal with the 1920 recession, government cut spending by half and the Fed intentionally created a sharp deflation.

In Krugman's neo-Keynesian world, this is known as austerity on steroids. Krugman would have predicted that such an economy should have collapsed because consumers would stop purchasing goods and services during a deflation and government created demand would have halved.

The idea that the Fed took its foot off the monetary brakes and the resulting increase in the money supply created an economic recovery is nonsense. The GDP started growing BEFORE the Fed started lowering interest rates again, which is why Krugman dishonestly skips over the inconvenient Fed discount rates.

Rely on Krugman for economic history at your own risk.

My post was not in response to you, Bart.

It was for the benefit of other commenters.

It is clear that responding to you is useless. Your combination of ignorance and certainty - you understand all about that recession, Krugman knows nothing - is off the charts.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Mr. W:

The South only imposed government racial discrimination under Democrats and not once under Republicans. It is not the region, it is the party.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP before and after WWI was almost indistinguishable. You cannot compare tax rates before and after WWI because the income tax was enacted between the two periods.

During the 1920s, the GDP grew at the fastest pace since the laissez faire era between 1790 to 1889. Thus, tax revenues and spending took off as well.


I have performed extensive research on the 1920 recession for my book project describing why progressivism does not work. The Wilson administration is an archetype of those problems.

Krugman obviously does not know squat about the causes of the 1920 recession and the subsequent recovery.

Indeed, the government "austerity" applied during 1921, 1946 and 1953 followed by strong economic growth pretty much debunk Kurgman's neo-Keynesian world view.


Did you come to your conclusion before your research? Sounds like it. And it doesn't matter how much Austrian stuff you read, or how carefully you studied Amity Shlaes' work. Not impressed.

Further, you seem to have missed Krugman's point, which is that fiscal policy didn't matter much, because the economic recovery was stimulated by monetary policy. That's pretty standard view. Things change when interest rates are at zero and can't drop, as they have been for some time.

Skip the "research" and take an introductory macro course.

Oh. And figure out whether you think the money supply needs to expand for there to be economic growth. You seem to want to have it both ways.


Frankly, I never heard of the 1920 recession before I was well into my research. This is a neglected period in economics that only a literal handful of economists have seriously addressed.

The Keynesian spin on this inconvenient episode is that monetary expansion restarted economic growth when, in fact, the former followed the latter.


Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) is the leading candidate for the:

No-Balls Prize in Economics!

While our own MRO confesses he never heard of the 1920 recession before he started his research, his research had the premise that progressivism was at fault for America's ills and then built upon that preconceived premise. Perhaps he could identify the " ... literal handful of economists [who] have seriously addressed [the 1920 recession]." The foundation for his premise is The Gilded Age, what he believes were America's best days, then the free-market oasis of the Roaring Twenties, second only to The Gilded Age as America's best days.

As to the economic growth following the 1920 recession, that rising tide may have lifted many yachts but swamped the dinghies of immigrants, farmers and African-Americans. Alas, the 8 years of Harding/Coolidge dumped an economy on Republican Hoover resulting in the Crash of '29, swamping the yachts, which converted into a recession and the Great Depression dumped on FDR in March of 1933. So our own MRO tries to break the chain of Republican Harding/Coolidge free markets by branding Republican Hoover as a (drum roll) progressive!

Once again, to quote Dana Milbank: "Oy vey iz mir! What a putz!"


Christmas viewing for us was "The Big Short," to be somewhat topical. I enjoyed it though the humor would have left a better taste if they weren't talking about my country. The usage of little bits where celebrities were inserted to translate banking jargon (is Selena Gomez everywhere?) was a nice touch. Movie seemed a bit long, but overall, I'd recommend it.

Eric Posner's review of The Big Short closed with a suggestion to "short it." Posner followed up with a post on a more positive review. I understand the author of the book was not involved with the movie's screenplay and that he had reservations about the movie. While I engage in poetic licentiousness from time to time, sometimes a good book is better than the movie, especially when addressing the complexities of Wall Street's financial products. Posner thought that even the book's author did not explain well the financial products and that the movie utterly failed in this regard.

To segue to the recent off-topic thread here, perhaps our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) as a budding economist (in his own mind) may address the Bush/Cheney 2007-8 Great Recession as resulting from (drum roll again) progressives! - dumped on the lap of Obama in January of 2009. But our own MRO should keep in mind his comments during the Bush/Cheney years at this Blog in lockstep with their military and economic policies. Bush/Cheney = progressives?

Perhaps our own MRO should take his free market love affair back to the founding with its free market in slavery. Or were the slaveowners also progressives?

I shall be reading more about The Big Short movie but may not live long enough to see it on TV with my basic cable commitment.

As for the new Star Wars, I was never into the old ones. (Imagine, George Lucas never saw his Star Wars!) Recent Honey-Nut Cheerios purchases included "droids" viewers that I gave to my 4 year old grandson. I'm not into "droids" but I do take care to identify the 'Rhoidless.

I have been awaiting a follow up post by Sandy on his Cato essay, responses thereto, as Sandy's response. Richard Albert followed up Sandy's response with his "An Enviable Crisis" commentary. I have enjoyed the back and forth. I congratulate all of the participants. By way of background, a significant symposium was held at BU Law School on political dysfunction a couple of years ago, much of which I attended. I commented on the Symposium at several posts on this Blog. I noted that there was no consensus of political dysfunction, nor any consensus assuming political dysfunction that the Constitution was a cause or contributed thereto. A year or so later, Sandy had a lengthy essay at an Ark. Law School symposium on nullification and secession as responsive to political dysfunction. I commented on that symposium at several posts at this Blog also. Now we are in the beginnings of the 2016 presidential campaigns. I don't hear much talk anymore on secession and nullification. In the Cato discussions, Sandy seems to have strayed away somewhat from secession and nullification as possibilities. But what comes through quite clearly is that there is not that much support for identifying the current situation as a constitutional crisis. Perhaps this is because of the 2016 campaigns. But are such campaigns masking secession and nullification as reactions to political dysfunction? If a Democrat is elected as our next President, can we expect a return of secession and nullification reactions by Republicans? And if Trump - or Ted s.CRUZ - were to win?

I'm not looking to extend this thread. Perhaps Sandy may take the bait of a post on the Cato essay, responses, etc. I do respect and share most of Sandy's concerns. But I fear a wide open second constitutional convention.

By the way, The BU Law School Symposium featured a fair number of political scientists. The Cato forum focused significantly on political scientists with legal backgrounds. That's been a constructive in my view.

I linked Paul Krugman's more positive take. It has received very good reviews, including from some who cover the events and parties involved. One topical comment in the movie was that people would blame poor people and foreigners. Guess that's possible. Trump would fit right in among the targets of the film.

I think Eric Posner (who I disagree with on various things & it amuses me that both Shag and Brett cited him recently to in effect provide a different view) exaggerates as to the movie. This is particularly so since it isn't a documentary. I did not read the book though agree often books can be better than movies. But, less people will take the time to read books here, especially on subjects many find tedious. And, both can be productive -- many good movies are good in part because they address important issues of the day.


I concluded that progressivism did not work (as opposed to not working as well as free markets) when the OECD plunged into an economic depression or what progressives call secular stagnation. Every progressive political economy is now at some stage of population/ labor, economic and fiscal implosion.

I started researching previous periods after I developed my thesis to see when these varioius sytemic failures started.

Since 1890, per capita GDP growth has been slowing in a cyclical manner with the expansion of the regulatory state and redistributionary tax system.

Starting with the Boomers, the combination of the welfate state, minimum compensation mandates and birth control sharply reduced population and then labor growth until the former is now below maintainance and and the latter is shrinking.

During this period, the government statrted borrowing money to pay the ongoing expenses of the welfare state until all govermemt debt is now above 100% of GDP. We are jogging toward sovereign insolvency.

Systemic failure.


I guess your research into the 1920-21 recession didn't include what Friedman said about it, which was that it eneded when the Fed loosended the money supply, after tightening substantially in response to post-WWI inflation.

Standard stuff, as I said.

Read this. for a simple explanation.

Our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) started with a biased "thesis." (I strongly doubt that he tested his biases via the hermeneutical circle, perhaps so ingrained are his biases that logic, reason and history have no effect.) Our MRO suggests he started with 1890, going forward in his own backwards manner. Is it coincidence that he started with that date? Wasn't that about the time The Gilded Age was being exposed more openly as the age of the Robber Barons? Let me note once again that our own MRO continues to claim that The Gilded Age were America's best days. As for free markets, perhaps as I suggested in an earlier comment he should go back to the founding and the free market of slavery.

Was it the free market that gave us a Pure Food Law, Clean Water, Clean Air, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,and yes, Obamacare, and other protections for a growing population involved in a world trade economy? Perhaps our own MRO could present his desired outcome with his thesis to compare what America would look like as opposed to currently.

And note that our own MRO avoids responding to my earlier:

"Perhaps he could identify the "'... literal handful of economists [who] have seriously addressed [the 1920 recession].'"

His reluctance may be because he was once again exaggerating, as he seems to be suggesting that he has more to offer than those unnamed economists. Is our own MRO building on their studies or is he challenging them? Sounds like his thesis advisor man be Glenn Beck backed with a bushel and a peck of fool's gold.

I suspect it's our own MRO who has a systemic failure calling for an "enematic" solution.


By the way, we not jogging towards insolvency. If you understood markets you would understand that if we were, interest rates
on Treasury securities would be soaring. They are not.

One of the problems Austrians have is their utter faith in their own logic, and refusal to look at actual data. This is just another example.


RationalWiki? Really?

Friedman merely noted in his Monetary History of the US, as I did above, that the Fed corrected the hyper inflation it caused with an equally massive deflation.


I started my research with the stagflation created by the Articles in the 1780s.

The period between 1790 to 1889 was basically laissez faire apart from the Civil War.

The 1890s saw the populists enacting a bimetallic monetary system, which caused havoc in the financial system. This marked the end of laissez faire.

Sorry, I did not bring my list of works on the 1920 recession on vacation with me. You will have to wait.

I suspect our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) is channeling (e.g., riding the coattails of) Murray N. Rothbard.

The laissez faire between 1790 through the Civil War included free market slavery. Post the Civil War laissez faire included free market Jim Crow in the former slave states, and even beyond.

Our MRO's description of the 1890s is loose enough to be vapor.

The laissez faire, free markets lauded by our own MRO have racial overtones. That's the goal of his attempts at revisionism.

Lots of places to find the same information, Bart.

I just picked the simplest one.


Currently, we are the least worst government debtor, so private bond holders moved from nations closer to insolvency to t-bills. The Fed has also been creating fiat money to buy t-bills under the rubric of quantitative easing. As a result, interest rates for servicing our debt are artificially low.

When interest rates go back to normal over the next decade, the interest we pay to service the debt will surpass the DoD budget.

Over the next 15 years, all the Medicare and Social Security intra-governmental debt will be converted to public debt and we will have to borrow 25% of those program's cost to maintain current benefits.

By that point, several nations in the EU will likely have entered and the US will be on the precipice of sovereign insolvency.

Once again, systemic failure.

"Federal spending as a percentage of GDP before and after WWI was almost indistinguishable."

That's only if you're comparing it to the relatively sky high war years. Federal spending in 1914 was about 2.5% of GDP, in 1924 it was about 4%, a 60% increase, yet the latter decade is the one you point to as exemplary. If your hypothesis is that there is an inverse relationship between federal spending and economic growth those facts are very inconvenient.

"You cannot compare tax rates before and after WWI because the income tax was enacted between the two periods."

Incorrect, the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and a federal income tax immediately enacted (and later approved of by SCOTUS). The income tax in 1914 was over three times lower than what the Harding administration tax cuts achieved. Another rather inconvenient fact for you I should think.


You really don't understand financial markets. The US has always been a safe haven for worried lenders, but interest rates on Treasuries have been much higher in the past. Now it's true that if your Republican idiot pals had their way and the debt ceiling weren't raised, we would not be able to pay our bills, and the consequences would be catastrophic, but fortunately that didn't happen.

Besides, interest rates on private borrowing are extremely low. If the market expected inflation that simply wouldn't be the case. Again, this is financial ABC's. Further, there are plenty of governments that are not close to insolvent. They may not be as solid as we are, but that would only be reflected in them paying a marginally higher interest rate. Part of thereason wea re better off is that we didn't go whole hog on destructive austerity programs, but did have some sort of stimulus, though not what it should have been.

As for the Fed, yes it's been buying debt. (By the way, as soon as you start raving about "Creating fiat money to buy T-bills, etc. you identify yourself as wing-nut.) So what? Why does that make rates "artificially low?" There are huge quantities of Treasury debt held by lots and lots of people, central banks, institutions and so on. If an inflation spike were imminent those people would be selling that debt like crazy, and rates would spike up. It's not happening. Now, I know it's an Austrian principle to ignore data, but that's just one reason they don't make much sense.

Oh. One more thing. "Quantitative easing" does not refer at all to buying T-bills. It refers specifically to buying longer term debt.

So your comment is yet another example of the economic word salad you've been putting out. It's amazing.

I appreciate the discussion though perhaps Selena Gomez etc. ala "The Big Short" can come in to help things out.

Here's a link to Murray Rathbard audios relating to his "The American Economy and The End of Laissez-Faire; 1870 To World War II":

The audios are lengthy. Coat-tailing?


The yield on US government debt is at historic lows for the reasons I noted above.

Fiat money is an economic term for any currency which is not backed by a commodity with independent value like gold.

I use the term in a more limited fashion for when the Fed expands the money supply faster than the GDP for which the money serves as a proxy.

The markets are not expecting imminent insolvency (not inflation) and neither am I. As I posted above, when Medicare and Social Secuirty go insolvent in the next 15 years and the US has to borrow to make up the shortfall and will be paying normal of historically high interest rates on its debt, we will be on the edge of insolvency.



The only work I have consulted by Rothbard is America's Great Depression.

Thnaks for the link.


So you're just repeating what you said, as if saying it the second time makes it right?

I know what fiat money is, thanks. It's just that when people start talking about it as if it's some kind of fraud and raving about the Fed that they sound like wing nuts. Furthermore, under a gold standard, gold does not have "an independent value" the way you seem to think. The value is set by government and maintained by the central bank through market intervention. Here's something to think about. Suppose the market price of gold rises above the value set by the Treasury. What happens?

Money is not a proxy for GDP. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Economic word salad again. Anyway, back at the beginning of this discussion you didn't even concede that the money supply needed to expand with economic growth. Deflation? No big deal per Bartonomics, just some discomfort for debtors which includes anyone with a mortgage or car loan, or any other fixed obligation. And investors, by the way, are conceptually the same thing as debtors for these purposes,so investment capital dries up, but Bartonomics says it doesn't matter.

This website seems to be a mirror of our own MRO's views:

Check out the Mission Statement and Principles. Who gives a FFF***?


All commodities traded in the economy have an independent value.

Under a gold standard, the government does set an exchange rate for the currency and a quantity of gold. It often does not correspond to the market value of gold. This is only a problem if the currency can be cashed in for gold and the market value of gold exceeds the exchange rate.

Currency which is not backed by a commodity has no independent value or purpose except to serve as a means of exchange for the goods and services we create and trade in the economy. It is thus a proxy for those goods and services.

Monetary inflation is when the money supply in is increasing faster than the goods and services for which it is a proxy.

If the money supply is pegged at a percentage of GDP, there can be no monetary inflation and prices are set entirely by supply and demand.

Back somewhat on topic, here's a line from Paul Krugman's NYTimes column today titled "Doubling Down on W":

"True, Ted Cruz is alone among the top contenders in calling explicitly for a return to the gold standard — you could say that he wants to Cruzify mankind upon a cross of gold. (Sorry.) "

As Jimmy Durante used to say, "Everybody wants to get into da act."

The following is from the Principles of the FFF website:

Our nation was founded on the principles of individual freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government. As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect, people have the natural and God-given rights to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. It is the duty of government to protect, not destroy or infringe upon, these inherent and inalienable rights.

For well over a century, the American people said “no” to such things as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, public schooling, economic regulations, immigration controls, drug laws, gun control, paper money, the Federal Reserve, overseas empire, militarism, entangling alliances, and foreign wars. Despite the tragic exception of slavery, the result was the most prosperous, healthy, literate, and compassionate society in history.

In the 20th century, however, America moved in the opposite direction—in the direction of socialism, interventionism, and imperialism. The result has been massive infringements on our economic liberty, civil liberties, gun rights, and privacy, along with out-of-control federal spending, debt, and inflation, all of which have reduced our prosperity, damaged our families, and weakened our sense of morality, self-reliance, and voluntary charity.

The time has come for the American people to lead the world out of the statist morass in which it has plunged. The time has come to restore libertarian principles to our land. It is to that end that The Future of Freedom Foundation is dedicated.


This seems to be what our own MRO (Macro 'Rhoidless One) is spewing. Ou Own MRO's thesis blames progressives, including Republicans when it is convenient. Which of the current Republican presidential candidates espouses this crapola? Our own MRO is part of this fringe libertarian group that going back in time will remedy America's claimed ills. Mainstream economists of both the left and the right don't take this fringe group seriously. (Recall the Tea Party's "Keep your hands off my Medicare." ) This is the fringe group weaned on Ayn Rank, who was a practicing libertine and less a libertarian. Our own MRO's goal is to get in step with that out-of-step fringe group. Our own MRO is a political outlier, as well as an out-and-out liar on the subject of economics.

FFF is basic libertarianism and isolationism.

My thesis is that progressivism is an unsustainable political economy which will require constitutional reform to reverse.

My proposed reforms concentrate on reversing progressivism and relimiting government, but do not address 90% of the FFF's principles. That is for a restored representative democracy.

So we should guess at the 10% our own MRO will address? Is our own MRO suggesting that some progressive achievements are actually worthwhile? Political economies change over time, as do many things, even democracy. We live in an interdependent world to be considered in America's political calculations. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can buy into our own MRO's thesis. So is our own MRO's goal his suggested alternative of armed revolution?

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], our own MRO's use of "thesis" seems out of place in the academic sense. (Does he have an advisor?)


If the money supply is pegged at a percentage of GDP, there can be no monetary inflation and prices are set entirely by supply and demand.

So in a recession, when GDP shrinks, we should shrink the money supply? That is macroeconomic suicide. And I thought you were a gold standard fan.

Even in an inflationary environment prices are generally set by supply and demand. Inflation does not play a role in that mechanism.

Please stop saying money is a "proxy" for GDP. Your version of the Quantity Theory was abandoned as too simplistic centuries ago.


Given that nearly every major recession over the past century was caused in part by the Fed creating fiat currency and causing fincial bubbles and/or general inflation, pegging the money supply to GDP would dramatically reduce the number and severity of recessions.

The Fed could smooth out money supply fluctuation by pegging the money supply to a running average of the past three or four years of GDP.

Supply and demand sets relative prices for goods and services and cannot create general inflation. When the money supply tracks GDP and comsumers spend more money on one good, they spend less money on another good.

I am using Milton Friedman's reformulation of the quantity thoery of money.



that nearly every major recession over the past century was caused in part by the Fed creating fiat currency and causing fincial bubbles and/or general inflation,..

No. This is not true.

pegging the money supply to GDP would dramatically reduce the number and severity of recessions.

The Fed could do a lot of things. whether they are a good idea or not is a different matter. And you still haven't told us what happened to your love of the gold standard.

Your statement of the Quantity Theory ignores velocity.

Supply and demand sets relative prices for goods and services and cannot create general inflation.

Indeed. Who said otherwise?


Toad: "No. This is not true."

1920, 1930-32, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1969, 1973-75, 1980-82, 1991 and 2008.

OK Bart,

First, listing all the recessions is nice, but does nothing to support your ridiculous claims about their causes. You seem to be particularly fond of argument by assertion and repetition. Maybe that works in court, but it's really not a good technique otherwise.

Do you honestly think there was a Fed-created bubble leading to the Great Depression? The money supply was shrinking, not expanding.

Third the housing bubble of 2008 was not caused by the Fed. Irresponsible, not to say criminal, practices by the financial industry were the primary cause. The low interest rates were a factor, but very far from the main one.

Prior to the 1958 recession rates were rising, not falling. The Fed cut rates, as it dhould have, to bring about a recovery.

I'm not going to research the rest. Do your own homework. And stay away from the Mises Institute or whatever source you are using.

I think I'll leave you there. At least I hope I can stay away this time and stop wasting time beating my head against this particular wall.

The Fed follows its monetary inflations by raising interest rates and other actions to remove the excess money and which cause or deepen recessions.

Yes, the combination of Hoover's trade war causing loan defaults and Fed tightening after creating an inflation in the late 20's caused the 1930-32 recession.

Pegging the money supply to GDP would stop this monetary yoyoing.

Somewhat closer to this post comes from Paul Waldman, with an excerpt at Daily Kos on the efforts of Marco Rubio in Iowa:

"While everyone waits for the voters to finally figure out that they ought to be supporting Rubio, the only candidate who at the moment looks like he might be able to defeat Donald Trump is Ted Cruz. From the perspective of the party’s fortunes in the general election, that would be sort of like being cured of your electoral syphilis by contracting gonorrhea."

I wouldn't be surprised by a Trump Plan B for a CRUZ-fix.

Charming analogy.

Cruz is already tied with Clinton among Democrat leaning registered voters using 2012 turnout demographics.

0ne guess what Clinton's disapproval rate is among the 10% undecided.

Clinton polls like the Democrat Senate did in 2013.

Trump's Plan B is underway: CRUZ's Castro Connection. Pere Cruz left Cuba for America when Batista was in power. Also, Marco Rubio's parents left Batista's Cuba - not Castro's Cuba - for America.

The smart money is shifting

And the sands are shifting, but do not provide a solid foundation. Pere Cruz will be made into a liability as a self-proclaimed goon for Castro, fleeing Batista's Cuba for America and getting asylum. Even if Iowa evangelicals swallow Pere Cruz, the rest of America will see him as an Elmer Gantry. Pere Cruz's hatred is in his genes.

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts