Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
What good is reading all this history, presumably to recycle to the citizens, and to ask to consider the consequences of elections, when the citizens (about 2/3rds of them anyway) are more interested in watching something thought provoking like “American Idol?”
That is the sad part: The lack of “fertile ground” left in the heads of many anymore, in which seeds can be planted.
Just my ‘pinion
xformed/
Even back in the 50s, Truman’s Sec of State Dean Atchison worried in his memoirs “Present At The Creation” that the amt of time the avg. citizen spent thinking about foreign affairs was perhaps 10min/wk.
And it’s been down-hill all the way ever since…..
Two things jumped out for me:
1. Amity Shlaes notes that she is a “history writer with a journalism background, not an economist.”
2. “There aren’t many books that take a negative look at the New Deal,” explained Republican policy aid Mike Ference,..
If the GOP wants to understand the Great Depression and the New Deal, they would do well to read economists, rather than pop historians with a new red meat book to sell.
And the reason there “aren’t many books negative of the New Deal” should be telling in itself.
If I understand you correctly, and maybe I don’t, only a subject matter expert in a given field is capable of writing a book on that said subject? With that rationale, why would anyone read anything in the papers, or listen to anyone of dozens of reporters on the news, for surely they are not close to being even remotley familiar with that which they report on. For that matter, an author who documents a murderer must first go out and commit murder in order to write logically on the subject? Your inferences are amusing at best, and at worst exactly what is wrong with this country.
Those are the things that jump out at me.
Oh, don’t mind fliterman, he’s just engaging in some knee-jerk defensiveness.
Apparently the possibility that an historian with a background in journalism (you know, fields where research and investigation are important) might actually write a useful story (i.e. “reporting”) about an event never occurred to him.
Yep, it tells us that economics is politicized and the left doesn’t like the truth.
FDR’s own Treasury Secretary stated the “New” Deal didn’t work. Don’t you believe him?
It’s because people like you support socialism, and control Academia and publishing.
Would, say, something from the UCLA Economics department be more credible for you?
Take a look at the August 2004 issue of the “Journal of Political Economy”, ”What – or Who – Started the Great Depression?” Ohanian and Cole’s paper on why the Depression lasted so much longer than previous (or succeeding, for that matter) economic recessions. As in closer to 15 years than a more normal 2 to 3 years.
Lee E. Ohanian is the vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics, his coauthor Harold L. Cole is a member of the faculty of the economics department.
Better?
I know Nixon is (and forever will be) persona non grata, but his appeal to “the silent majority” still resonates with me. There is a generally idle class of single, unencumbered citizens who have the luxury of influencing government and society with activism, through media or otherwise. I think, however, the majority of Americans are “forgotten men [and women],” who work hard to subsist and contribute to society. They may have been tired of Bush and the Republicans in 2008, and deluded by the Democrat’s self-representation to the media, but I hope they are taking a long and critical look at their leaders’ version of the hope and change they sold.
And for what it’s worth, at least the Congressional Republicans are actually paying attention to history, and maybe even developing a conscience about doing the RIGHT thing instead of simply toeing the party line.
Dear Fliterman,
Sometimes there aren’t a lot of books (esp. important ones) on x because x is a settled question but sometimes because it is a sacred cow. New scholarship on WWI is worlds different from what was written 20-30 years ago – so much so that most of what people think they know about that war from the previous lit has been proven wrong or wildly exagerated (similar phenomenon for much of the history and poli sci lit on things Russian and Soviet). Also, economic history is different from economics and so I’m not sure if it true that to understand the New Deal one is better served by reading the work of an economist than a historian, though on the whole it seems to me that there is a great deal of agreement that the U.S. didn’t start coming out of the Depression until WWII (and not the New Deal) stimulated the economy.
Dear DC,
Your interesting points are well taken.
Indeed history, like fine vintage wine changes its character and value over time, as it fortunately becomes more refined. Of course depending upon the type of grape or wine, this is not always true. I believe – although many debates do remain – that the written history of the Great Depression will be little changed 100 years from now.
While the historian is passive in nature, the economist or economic advisor is not. The later can actually make history, while the former can only write about it.
While the commander in the field should be and usually is well versed in military history, it is far more important that he be well versed in current weapons, strategies, tactics, intelligence, etc. Likewise, while political leaders should be well versed in the history of recessions, panics, and depressions, I believe it to be far more important to rely on current economic theory and economists in determining economic weapons, strategies, tactics, etc. to avoid and correct economic crises.
I acknowledge the long running debate of WWII vs. the New Deal in rescuing our economy. In fact, both played major rolls. Our national economy even in the ’20s and ’30s is like a mammoth ocean going tanker with tremendous inertia. Once serious trouble is encountered, it nevertheless takes seemingly forever to back down, slow or stop, and then turn and establish a new safe course. And if in avoiding a depression, the economy is dead in the water and drifting astern, it takes years to get back on track.
There can be no doubt the New Deal stimulated the economy, just as WWII did. But a large part of the New Deal was also to put in place, safeguards, designed to preclude or limit another depression. Unfortunately, many of these safeguards have been abandoned in the last two decades, and indeed this has contributed greatly to our current economic crisis.
I believe it to be far more important to rely on current economic theory and economists in determining economic weapons, strategies, tactics, etc. to avoid and correct economic crises.
flit, some might reasonably argue that it was precisely the reliance on these folks that brought us to this unhappy place we find ourselves in. Given that economic crises have occurred before, might we look to history to better inform our choices rather than the econ theory du jour?
flit/
The difference between the New Deal and what the Obama Admin is doing is that much of the “stimulus” of FDRs programs was plowed into concrete, meaningful, permanent, infrastructure like Boulder/Hoover Dam, etc., which truly leveraged the efficiency/effectiveness and competitiveness of our economy–as opposed to ephemeral BS like the some 8-13 Billion (depending on whose doing the counting) the current stimulus pkg make available for “organizing”–an esoteric BS concept if ever there was one–outfits like ACORN (whose members have already been convicted of voter fraud in several states.) Already we have the sight of the CEO of Caterpillar (who Obama used to hype his “stimulus” program) publicly complaining that even China has done a better job in this regard, and that too few dollars are being spent on things that will actually go to permanently improving our physical infrastructure.
Yea, but China does not have a two party system. And they have no problem writing off over a 1/3 of their population. Makes governing a lot simpler. Hopefully we are not there yet……..
“There can be no doubt the New Deal stimulated the economy, just as WWII did.”
I call BS. Unemployment never dropped below 14% 1930-1941 and some years was 25%
Data from Info please
Overall Unemployment Rate in the U.S. Civilian Labor Force, 1920–2007
Here’s a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2007.
Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
Unkawill –
While you make a very valid point – that the unemployment rate remained excessively high during the ’30s – my original point is hardly “BS” because of that fact.
Indeed, after bottoming in 1933, our GDP grew an impressive 63% by 1940. The reasons that employment did not track the great rise in economic recovery and GDP growth resulting from the New Deal was because of the concurrent great strides in labor productivity. I.E. When a single worker can produce more, less additional workers are needed. Production and GDP increase with fewer workers, so the unemployed were not rehired as normally needed before.
My father who was a self-sustaining farmer was not greatly affected by the Great Depression. But he lauded FDR. In my hometown, we have a beautiful park, courthouse, and other structures that remain useful and beautiful today – 70 years later – because of the unemployed CCC. Yes, unemployment rates were high, but they would have been tragically much higher – and indeed very dangerous to our Republic – had FDR not established similar programs that put the unemployed to work, and also improved the beauty and needed infrastructure of our country, that continues to benefit us today.
Measuring the success or failure of economic programs to correct economic crises solely on the unemployment rate, while perhaps useful, is nevertheless a narrow and not very instructive measure.
The New Deal had both boosted our economy, but also has protected us from economic excess and subsequent economic depressions since. But unfortunately, as its tenants have eroded in recent years, we now find ourselves back into Hoover economic pain.
flit/
Glad you mentioned the CCC. My Father was briefly in the CCC . Helped build Lake Decatur, Ill. He proudly pointed that fact out every time we drove by it as I was growing up. The CCC built useful things of lasting value like lakes and dams (earthen, rural flood ctl.) What do you think of “lasting value” will be built by Obama’s “Nat. Service Corps?”
What do you think of “lasting value” will be built by Obama’s “Nat. Service Corps?”
Uhhh, hopefully it will be a footnote in history. When I lived in California (15 years ago now), a buddy would arrange a day hike once a year to Hollister …. a great hiking park built by CCC. A common comment would be “This could never be built today. Steps cut in the rock. Holes drilled in the rock for hand rails. land cultured for a parking lot. The environmentalists would be up in arms. There’d be so many lawsuits nothing would ever have been built”
So I believe the Won’s National Service Corp would be nothing more than an indoctrination camp for young minds. Impossible for them to actually DO anything concrete because of environmental, labor (can you see the lawsuits by the unions over the government construction using conscripted labor??? Pure schadenfreude) , or other “professional union” organization. All that would be left for them is political indoctrination (have to use a profession educator for that. The NEA would assure that), and missionary work to the “inner city” to recruit more bodies-by-example for the National Service Corp. How Orwellian.
JoeC/
You and I know that, but does flit?
flit, you imply that unemployment is something of a poor metric to measure success by. That’s fine, but don’t ever let me hear you make an income disparity argument.
But you also claim the New Deal prevented excesses and subsequent depressions since then. How do you intend to prove this? Do you have evidence that subsequent cycles of prosperity and contraction were either mitigated or exacerbated by New Deal economic policies? In short, you make a statement which we are all to take as fact, but for which there is no evidence.
Virgil – You grew up in Decatur??? Drop me a mail (bret59 at comcast dott net).
heh. That probably explains ‘im. All those fumes from Staley’s or (now) ADM corn and soy processing. Mmmmm, soy sauce. I (well as a passenger w/ my parents) traveled U.S. 36 many a time through there on the way to Terre Haute. That burned soy smell still sticks in my mind…. I can’t imagine being raised in it.
Oops, probably the wrong Decatur (Illinois, but also Alabama, Georgia, Texas, others?)
JoeC/
Yeah, passing thru the heart of the Staley plant on the elevated part of 36 with the towers on either side; man, close the vents and roll up the windows! (pre-ac days) You’re right, sure stays in one’s memory, just like smells of the sour mash from the distilleries in Louisville where I lived for the better part of 20 yrs or the sawmills’ smell in Mobile when I went home for the weekend with one of my college room-mates at LSU. Some things you never forget..
Dear fliterman,
I’m not sure I agree – knowledge of history is not just an intellectual luxury item for politicians or soldiers, icing on the cake as it were that is nice but dispensible. To the contrary, knowledge of previous economic crises like earlier military history is critically important not only in the minor role of providing some sense of older “techniques” or tactics that worked once and might help out again, but in the broader development of a vision and strategy. I think as Americans we depend too much upon short term thinking/”problem solving” that we would like to think is simply practical and pragmatic – “common sense.” Hence, we don’t need no stinking history high falutin book larnin if its going to interfere with important things like current technical knowledge. Yet our pragmatism – born of great wealth and geo-strategic good fortune – while it often (though not always) works well at home, gets us into trouble again and again when dealing with societies with very different cultural and historical traditions. Furthermore, in a globalized world, even when framing economic policies history, including economic history, matters, because economists (esp. of the rational-choice variety that so populate our universities and think tanks) are going to have to take into account not just what we regard as sensible economics based upon our “pragmatic” models, but are going to have to take into account other traditions of economics, which might be interested in balancing high levels of competition via state action, social restrictions or religious taboos. So I fear I don’t buy the argument that policy makers can just stock up on technical knowledge as the most needful thing – deeper thinking grounded in history, literature and philosophy is just as important as technical know-how to develop true strategic insight – otherwise we will increasingly resemble Germany in the early 20th century – so caught up in tactical/operational thinking that we lose sight of bigger strategic, historical and cultural realities.
Finally, while knowledge of history is passive, I think your using “passive” in the modern sense to imply something less powerful and dynamic than a classical use of that term. In the older usage most knowledge worth having as “passive” – depending upon deep insight and reflection on permanent things rather than on life’s surfaces. For a very long time Americans have done well because given our cultural and political inheritance and a truly bountiful continental space we could make all sorts of blunders and come out on top (esp. because we’ve never had to fight or otherwise compete against anyone much bigger than us – and the last time we got into a real fight with such a power they burned our capital while they were engaged with Napoleon). Those days are gone, and I fear pragmatism and technical know how alone are not going to cut it, esp. when we think that the truly, unarguably dismal “science” of economics has such a high ratio of snake oil to medicine in it.
Joe, You tellin me you dont love the smell of fresh toasted soybeans? Waz wrong with you? Must be a Hoosier or sumpin.
6.2 Xbrad – 2 quickies:
25 banks have failed already this year. If it were not the New Deal’s FDIC, there would be massive runs on all our banks in this current crises, and they most all would fail. All depositors’ money would be wiped out!
Imagine the extreme gyrations and corruption, market manipulation and fraud that would exist within the stock market without FDR’s SEC?
Unfortunately the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was repealed in 1999. Its repeal by Phil Gramm and Jim Leach is generally accepted to have exacerbated if not directly caused much of our current financial and economic crisis.
“Unfortunately the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was repealed in 1999. Its repeal by Phil Gramm and Jim Leach is generally accepted to have exacerbated if not directly caused much of our current financial and economic crisis.”
Uh….actually, it was Bill Clinton who signed the bill repealing Glass-Steagall.
#8
Dear DC,
Yours is one of the more cogent posts that I have read in some time.
Therefore, I will have to remain a little “passive” for now, and stand corrected.
flit/
I wish you would refrain from your new-found “passivity” long enough to answer the question I posed regarding the criticism by many (not just lil’ ‘ole me) that so very little of Obama’s “stimulus” pkg dollars have actually gone to permanent “bricks & mortar” infrastructure improvements as compared to the New Deal–or even modern-day China’s implementation of their own stimulus program. I’ve got
the gain on the hydro-phones tuned to max awaiting your reply. (gotta toss in Squid-talk for this Navy blog once in a while, ya know)