The Silent Majority: Immigration restriction, protection of domestic jobs, limitation of government on all levels, ending our world police man status, build nuclear power plans en masse, term limits and devolution of power from the central government. Believe it Dayo and David.

Always great to see Dayo and Dave. Together, all the better. Dave was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight discussing the teabaggers who are challenging Ron Paul in his district's Republican primary. Rachel and Dave also discussed whether teabaggers are more like Ron Paul libertarians, or Jim DeMint Republicans.

This is David's version and he pretends that there is a consensus about his version, but that's not true even in Econ departments. Now, I agree that cutting taxes has many meanings and that it doesn't necessarily 'stimulate' (whatever that means), but the part about Keynesians deficit spending is dubious, especially since most of Reagan's spending was on the military.

Quoting Unit: This is David's version and he pretends that there is a consensus about his version, but that's not true even in Econ departments. Now, I agree that cutting taxes has many meanings and that it doesn't necessarily 'stimulate' (whatever that means), but the part about Keynesians deficit spending is dubious, especially since most of Reagan's spending was on the military.

That's why it's called military Keynesianism.

Quoting claymisher: That's why it's called military Keynesianism.

Oh, I didn't know it had a name. Sure you can raise GDP that way, but tanks and bombs are not really 'growth' in my book. "Growth" means better ways of doing more with less, and unfortunately that's very hard to measure with Keynesian aggregates.

Quoting TwinSwords: Always great to see Dayo and Dave. Together, all the better.

Dave was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight discussing the teabaggers who are challenging Ron Paul in his district's Republican primary. Rachel and Dave also discussed whether teabaggers are more like Ron Paul libertarians, or Jim DeMint Republicans.

David reports on the same topic here. So, who of the prominent conservatives is going to support the primary challenge to Ron Paul? Bill Kristol, alright, but are David Frum and David Brooks joining the Tea Partay?
There is no question there exists an internal ideological tension between different strains of the conservative movement. But if this particular story doesn't amount to more than a bunch of individuals challenging Paul without real popular support, which happened in the past, I'll call it a shoddy, sensationalistic reporting on Weigel's part.

From the rest of the issues you list, I sort of get the vibe that most that fit in your silent majority designation do not think AGW is a problem. So why would they want to build nuclear power plants? That won't give us energy independence.

Quoting Unit: This is David's version and he pretends that there is a consensus about his version, but that's not true even in Econ departments.

This is not the first time Weigel pretends Keynesianism is some sort of a "scientific consensus". I think you called him on it before when he said something similar about the Great Depression.
It's funny how invocation of the "scientific consensus", behind which all reasonable people should stand in line, goes farther and farther towards epistemological wilderness (Evolution->Global Warming->Economic Interventionism).

Quoting Unit: This is David's version and he pretends that there is a consensus about his version, but that's not true even in Econ departments. Now, I agree that cutting taxes has many meanings and that it doesn't necessarily 'stimulate' (whatever that means), but the part about Keynesians deficit spending is dubious, especially since most of Reagan's spending was on the military.

What is dubious about it? Military spending (new weapons systems etc) did account for most of the deficit spending under Reagan. Could you cite an economist who thinks that tax cuts were the main motor of growth during that period? Re: claymisher's point. Keynes thought that running deficits for war would confirm his theory, even though he deplored the fact. He wrote several articles to that effect in the early years of WW II.

Dayo Olopade, regarding what you said here... http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/258...2:08&out=23:31 The "tea party movement" did start during Bush's presidency. Read the archives of libertarian websites, you'll see the same or very similar criticisms of Bush as you see of Obama. It's just the "tea party" name got popular during Obama's presidency. The "tea party movement" started as a reaction to the bailouts that Bush started.

So 97 years ago? Uh-huh. Now I understand. Really, I had never heard it quite that way before.

Dayo is definitely one of the better liberals.

Quoting wreaver: Dayo Olopade, regarding what you said here...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/258...2:08&out=23:31

The "tea party movement" did start during Bush's presidency. Read the archives of libertarian websites, you'll see the same or very similar criticisms of Bush as you see of Obama.

It's just the "tea party" name got popular during Obama's presidency.

The "tea party movement" started as a reaction to the bailouts that Bush started.

Yes. Dave's response to her good question about where these people were during the Bush years was to discuss their education level. That doesn't answer her question at all.
I'm a regular NRO reader, and those guys were complaining about Bush's big gov't while he was still in office. The reason the Tea Party movement is exploding now is that Bush looks like Dave Ramsey compared to Obama/Reid/Pelosi.

Mmmm tea.

Quoting blocheed: Yes. Dave's response to her good question about where these people were during the Bush years was to discuss their education level. That doesn't answer her question at all.
I'm a regular NRO reader, and those guys were complaining about Bush's big gov't while he was still in office. The reason the Tea Party movement is exploding now is that Bush looks like Dave Ramsey compared to Obama/Reid/Pelosi.

I doubt you can quantify that fantasy. Where were the "fiscal conservatives" in the run up to the invasion of Iraq? How does Bush's spending compare to Obama's when the cost of that engagement is included? What happened to the surpluses we were seeing under Clinton? This sort of argument by assertion is hard to take very seriously.

I honestly don't think most folks consider the costs of the war as rolled into discretionary spending. Instead, people see CBO charts like this one and respond accordingly.

Quoting blocheed: I honestly don't think most folks consider the costs of the war as rolled into discretionary spending. Instead, people see CBO charts like this one and respond accordingly.

So what? It's all money poured from the same bucket, and has the same effect on the downstream economy. If Iraq wasn't a "discretionary" war, then I don't know what was. The larger point is that the wisdom of Obama's spending is far easier to defend than Bush's; and the artificial divide you'd like to impose is meaningless.

"Stick the shiv in?" Oh yeah, I'm surprised Obama didn't hire Dayo to replace Barty Crouch as communications director! Bwaaa! BTW, Obama is not extending his hand to Republicans out of good faith. He's extending his hand because every time he sticks his hand in dog poop (Beer Summit, Holder-KSM, Napolitano-Underpants, etc., etc.) he needs someone to wipe it on. His administration is breaking up faster than a Kennedy family reunion in a dry county.

Quoting AemJeff: So what? It's all money poured from the same bucket, and has the same effect on the downstream economy. If Iraq wasn't a "discretionary" war, then I don't know what was. The larger point is that the wisdom of Obama's spending is far easier to defend than Bush's; and the artificial divide you'd like to impose is meaningless.

Fair enough. Then if we must consider the ongoing costs of our wars, then Obama must consider those costs as well even though he didn't initiate them. If a predecessor saddles me with tons of debt, it isn't reasonable to proceed as though those debts didn't exist simply because they weren't of my choosing. This makes Obama's spending less defensible not more so.

Do you have any evidence that there is no consensus that supply side economics didn't work? I literally remember learning that in macro economics. I had a very conservative professor who did his best to hide his ideology, but it was clear. He was also the chairman of the undergraduate economics department and he told us that empirically supply-side economics didn't work, at least as it was originally claimed to (ie raise revenue by lowering taxes and increase the distribution of wealth). So at least from my experience, I think David is correct. Not to split hairs, but David doesn't seem to buy into Keynesian economics wholesale, as opposed to say Monetarism, he just makes the point that it is factually untrue that taxcutting is all Reagan did to lift us out of the recession that lasted through his first term. He actually raised taxes and tripled our national debt eventually, the latter of which is pretty Keynesian.

I cringe when people try to push their own views as those of the majority. It smacks of the mythological "real American" that Palin is fond of invoking to justify her beliefs and marginalize those of other people. You are only one person. Stop telling the rest of us what we think to justify what you think.

Quoting blocheed: Fair enough. Then if we must consider the ongoing costs of our wars, then Obama must consider those costs as well even though he didn't initiate them. If a predecessor saddles me with tons of debt, it isn't reasonable to proceed as though those debts didn't exist simply because they weren't of my choosing. This makes Obama's spending less defensible not more so.

I take it you aspire to be a teacher of philosophy and rhetoric.

Quoting AemJeff: I take it you aspire to be a teacher of philosophy and rhetoric.

Come on man, you can do better than that...

Quoting blocheed: Come on man, you can do better than that...

No, I really can't; not without something from which to work. The policy argument is a whole lot more interesting than transparent rhetorical stunts.

Here is the final proof racism is at the heart of the teabagging movement.
Please watch this amazing video, The First Anti-Ted Kennedy Tea Party: Boston's Anti-Busing Brigades.

Quoting AemJeff: No, I really can't; not without something from which to work. The policy argument is a whole lot more interesting than transparent rhetorical stunts.

So, am I to understand that you think that the war costs should only be attributed to Bush and not Obama? If you're concerned about costs, shouldn't the graph I linked to be of concern to you? If you're not concerned about costs, than why bring up Bush's spending in the first place? You can't simply label any argument you don't like sophistry and then run away to friendlier climes. In my earlier post I conceded your point about military expenditures needing to be a part of the CBO analysis, and that if we do that, Obama inherits those costs (at least the ones of maintaining both wars) as well. What part of that is sophistry?

Quoting blocheed: So, am I to understand that you think that the war costs should only be attributed to Bush and not Obama? If you're concerned about costs, shouldn't the graph I linked to be of concern to you? If you're not concerned about costs, than why bring up Bush's spending in the first place? You can't simply label any argument you don't like sophistry and then run away to friendlier climes. In my earlier post I conceded your point about military expenditures needing to be a part of the CBO analysis, and that if we do that, Obama inherits those costs (at least the ones of maintaining both wars) as well. What part of that is sophistry?

Who initiated the war in Iraq? That's the only war I brought up, and it is, I believe, suis generis in that there was no good argument for the engagement; so the people who signed off on it should get the entire bill for it. Your argument was sophistry because it ignored the specifics pertinent to my assertion. You made the distinction between Bush's and Obama's spending ("Bush looks like Dave Ramsey compared to Obama/Reid/Pelosi") which is the specific point

"As nervous as a whore in church" used to be the ultimate expression of being in an uncomfortable situation. Maybe now 'Weigel working at Reason Magazine" will replace it.

President Obama is the only one responsible for the current budget... which is 1.6 trillion larger that any long-term budget Bush proposed. Bush can't do a dang thing about what is going on today... cause, he's not in charge, President Obama is. It is all on him and the Democrats now. Life is just such Jeff.

Quoting Salt: "Stick the shiv in?" Oh yeah, I'm surprised Obama didn't hire Dayo to replace Barty Crouch as communications director! Bwaaa! BTW, Obama is not extending his hand to Republicans out of good faith. He's extending his hand because every time he sticks his hand in dog poop (Beer Summit, Holder-KSM, Napolitano-Underpants, etc., etc.) he needs someone to wipe it on. His administration is breaking up faster than a Kennedy family reunion in a dry county.

lol. Your tough-guy cred is now toast. Good point.

Do you remember the "Starve the Beast*" phase conservatives went through? It turned out not to work very well, as few gov't programs were cut, all it did was balloon the national debt. Obama seems to be trying the mirror image of "Starve the Beast", that is he is promoting many new programs and increasing the funding for many existing programs to the point to where [many think] we will be forced to raise taxes to be fiscally responsible. Perhaps we should call this "Release the Beast"
I wonder if Release the Beast will work better then Starve the beast, or if we will just end up with large increases in the debt again. I guess it depends on raising taxes being much easier to push through congress then budget reductions. *"Starve the beast" was coined to represent the idea that if you could push through tax cuts, there would be no alternative to cutting programs and shrinking the size of the gov't

Quoting blocheed: I'm a regular NRO reader, and those guys were complaining about Bush's big gov't while he was still in office.

But how many of them were doing it before his approval ratings went south? As I remember it, there was nothing but unbridled support for Bush until the Dems took back Congress in 2006, and then after a bit of waiting and seeing, the new talking point became "Bush is not a real conservative!!!1!" I'll grant there may have been an occasional raised eyebrow about Bush's prescription drug benefit or specifics like that, but generally, the overall tone of NRO was strongly pro-Bush while he was doing the bulk of his fiscally irresponsible stunts. There was even, IIRC, some snickering at his spending, under the belief that this would be the only way to get cuts in the programs that NRO didn't like.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Perhaps we should call this "Release the Beast"

No, that's called "Stuff the Beast!" I am still optimistic starving the beast may eventually lead to radically reducing the size of the government. I am basing my optimism on the behavior of Californian voters who refused to accept tax increase as their state got in dire financial straits.

... fun-damental!

I think that counts as a Freudian Slip. I'm guessing that, like me, Dayo is irritated at having to constantly make an increasingly meaningless distinction between Conservatives and Republicans.

Quoting Don Zeko: I think that counts as a Freudian Slip. I'm guessing that, like me, Dayo is irritated at having to constantly make an increasingly meaningless distinction between Conservatives and Republicans.

Oh, yeah. And she did, in another second or two, go on to say "republican." But that's the whole spirit of dingalinks! But, since I was only goofing around, I probably should have added a winkie. Which I will now do.

Quoting tickknob: "As nervous as a whore in church" used to be the ultimate expression of being in an uncomfortable situation. Maybe now 'Weigel working at Reason Magazine" will replace it.

My favorite remains: as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

Quoting TwinSwords: Always great to see Dayo and Dave. Together, all the better.

Dave was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight discussing the teabaggers who are challenging Ron Paul in his district's Republican primary. Rachel and Dave also discussed whether teabaggers are more like Ron Paul libertarians, or Jim DeMint Republicans.

That was pretty helpful, thanks. I don't think I would have even been able to hazard a guess before watching that had someone asked me, "Why are the teabaggers against Ron Paul?" Ultimately, I think that generally, the teabaggers are just mad at how things are, or how they perceive them to be, so they're now into sucking up platitudes from Sarah Palin and hating on anyone who's in office, no matter what. It's a mindless hunt for scapegoats and a fantasy that if they (Palin) could wave their (her) magic wand, everything would instantly be all better again.

... that Dayo seemed to value so much, I'd recommend reading Doghouse Riley's take on it. (He reads Slate so we don't have to.) And on a more general note, Ms. Olopade: I cringed several times during this diavlog at the reading material you saw fit to mention. Jacob Weisberg? David Frum?? Maureen Effing Dowd??? Now, read what you like, but may I remind you, first, this is a site named Bloggingheads.tv, and second, the whole point of this site is to air something other than the see-double-yew. Please try to broaden your horizons. More regurgitated Villager-speak we surely don't need. As Mr. Riley points out, it is not entirely the voters' fault that they (we) are so ill-informed.

Quoting bjkeefe: More regurgitated Villager-speak we surely don't need.

Or, as Jason Linkins said ...

No doubt conservatives have failed at "starving the beast". It's not easy. If you cut anything that "helps" children, minorities, artists or the elderly, the other political party will kick, scream, point fingers, and throw some labels around. They all want to hold on to power and this makes it hard for politicians to be seen as the Grinch. Raising taxes when the economy is in the tank has got to be the stupidest idea ever though, both economically and politically. If it happens, Obama won't ever be President again, nor will a lot of Democrats.

Considering that all leftist programs require the coercive power of the government it's you and your ilk that force others to believe and purport to speak for the nation. Collectivist, keep your idealogy away from me! Chris Mathews is a fool!

Quoting Florian: What is dubious about it? Military spending (new weapons systems etc) did account for most of the deficit spending under Reagan. Could you cite an economist who thinks that tax cuts were the main motor of growth during that period?

Re: claymisher's point. Keynes thought that running deficits for war would confirm his theory, even though he deplored the fact. He wrote several articles to that effect in the early years of WW II.

What's dubious is that the military spending was the main reason that Reagan was "successful". David, not only doesn't buy the tax-cut narrative (which I don't buy either as the sole reason), but also says that the spending was what got America going (whatever that means). The problem is that prosperity is hard to measure, it's too easy to mistake "doing more with more" as prosperity, when in fact one should measure "doing more with less".
Personally, I wouldn't credit neither the tax-cutting nor the spending, I tend to believe that the economy is very complex and that we give too much credit to policies for affecting what they purport to accomplish (on both sides). There are two point about

Quoting messwithtexas: Do you have any evidence that there is no consensus that supply side economics didn't work? I literally remember learning that in macro economics. I had a very conservative professor who did his best to hide his ideology, but it was clear. He was also the chairman of the undergraduate economics department and he told us that empirically supply-side economics didn't work, at least as it was originally claimed to (ie raise revenue by lowering taxes and increase the distribution of wealth). So at least from my experience, I think David is correct.

Not to split hairs, but David doesn't seem to buy into Keynesian economics wholesale, as opposed to say Monetarism, he just makes the point that it is factually untrue that taxcutting is all Reagan did to lift us out of the recession that lasted through his first term. He actually raised taxes and tripled our national debt eventually, the latter of which is pretty Keynesian.

I'm not talking about supply-side. I said there's no consensus that Reagan was successful uniquely because of his deficit spending (David's claim).

Quoting Unit: ...
There are two point about WWII: yes, the US built a lot of bombs and tanks, but the private sector didn't do so well during the war and when it was time to demobilize and send the soldiers home, the same Keynesians thought it was a bad idea: their models showed massive unemployment. Instead that's when finally the US economy started to pick up again. It's not FDR's war that got us out of the depression, it's Truman's demobilization.

You can't prove that either of those steps was sufficient. And "demobilization" presupposes a mobilization. I'm not taking a stand on what's correct. Just saying that your narrative is far from proven.

How much of Europe's industrial base was left operational by the end of the war? I have always been told that the post WW2 American economy took off primarily because we were the only one left with sprocket factories...

Quoting AemJeff: You can't prove that either of those steps was sufficient. And "demobilization" presupposes a mobilization. I'm not taking a stand on what's correct. Just saying that your narrative is far from proven.

The post-WW2 period is exceptional because there wasn't a depression! Paul Davidson:

In The General Theory, Keynes argued that if an economy was operating at less than full employment, then the nation’s central bank, while maintaining the stability of financial markets, should focus on providing all the liquidity that the economy can absorb in order to reach full employment. For more than a quarter century after following World War II, the major central banks around the world tried to meet the role that Keynes had prescribed for them in his General Theory.

From the end of the war until the early 1970s most central banks tended to provide increases in the money supply in response to any domestic or international increase in demand for the nation’s money, while maintaining interest rates at historic lows for prosperous times. This endogenous increase in the money supply tended to support expansion of aggregate demand that resulted in a

Tell you what AemJeff, I consider myself a fair minded guy, so maybe there's a graph or chart out there that depicts Bush's spending that takes into account the Iraq war. If there is one, why don't you post it so we can use some real numbers in this discussion. Sorry I'm posting this a day late...

Quoting AemJeff: You can't prove that either of those steps was sufficient. And "demobilization" presupposes a mobilization. I'm not taking a stand on what's correct. Just saying that your narrative is far from proven.

No of course not. There are many other factors: many of the most ambitious "ideas" of the FDR admin were given up for instance, a lot of regulation was lifted. The same happened in Germany at that time, even though the situation was disastrous 'price controls' were lifted and the reconstruction was surprisingly swift. The Marshall plan is controversial, it might actually have hindered everyone in the long run, I haven't made up my mind on that.

Quoting claymisher: The post-WW2 period is exceptional because there wasn't a depression!

Paul Davidson:

You know, loving freedom from the government is a good enough reason to be a libertarian. Tendentious economic theorizing isn't required.

Right and this is economic gobbledegook: "In The General Theory, Keynes argued that if an economy was operating at less than full employment, then the nation’s central bank, while maintaining the stability of financial markets, should focus on providing all the liquidity that the economy can absorb in order to reach full employment. For more than a quarter century after following World War II, the major central banks around the world tried to meet the role that Keynes had prescribed for them in his General Theory. From the end of the war until the early 1970s most central banks tended to provide increases in the money supply in response to any domestic or international increase in demand for the nation’s money, while maintaining interest rates at historic lows for prosperous times. This endogenous increase in the money supply tended to support expansion of aggregate demand that resulted in a golden age of economic

Quoting Starwatcher162536: How much of Europe's industrial base was left operational by the end of the war?

I have always been told that the post WW2 American economy took off primarily because we were the only one left with sprocket factories...

I reject the idea that any economy takes off because everyone else is in ruin. It doesn't work that way: that's the mercantilist point of view of winning to the detriment of others. Instead prosperity means cooperation and returns to scale. Europe's economy took off as well in the post-war period, exceptionally so.

Quoting Unit: I reject the idea that any economy takes off because everyone else is in ruin. It doesn't work that way: that's the mercantilist point of view of winning to the detriment of others. Instead prosperity means cooperation and returns to scale. Europe's economy took off as well in the post-war period, exceptionally so.

Reject the idea all you like, that doesn't make it any the less true. It is a commonplace among historians that the American economy boomed during and after WW II. It is also a commonplace among historians that the American economy boomed in the 1920s in the wake of WW I. In both cases Europe lay in ruins and the American economy was strong, and in both cases its strength was directly related to production for war, and when the war ended, to trade with Europe. The Marshall Plan was premised on the belief that American prosperity depended on a prosperous Europe. None of this has anything to do with mercantilism.

Quoting blocheed: Tell you what AemJeff,

I consider myself a fair minded guy, so maybe there's a graph or chart out there that depicts Bush's spending that takes into account the Iraq war. If there is one, why don't you post it so we can use some real numbers in this discussion.

Sorry I'm posting this a day late...

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=...+Priorities%29

Quoting Unit: Right and this is economic gobbledegook:

"In The General Theory, Keynes argued that if an economy was operating at less than full employment, then the nation’s central bank, while maintaining the stability of financial markets, should focus on providing all the liquidity that the economy can absorb in order to reach full employment. For more than a quarter century after following World War II, the major central banks around the world tried to meet the role that Keynes had prescribed for them in his General Theory.

From the end of the war until the early 1970s most central banks tended to provide increases in the money supply in response to any domestic or international increase in demand for the nation’s money, while maintaining interest rates at historic lows for prosperous times. This endogenous increase in the money supply tended to support expansion of aggregate demand that resulted in a golden age of economic growth and development for both developed and less developed capitalist economies."

If only the Central Bank provided all the necessary liquidity!

Is there any monetary economics you approve of? Or do you think barter is the way to go?

One must give credit where credit is due "Or do you think barter is the way to go?"

Quoting bjkeefe: everything would instantly be all better again.

all better, again?

Quoting Florian: Reject the idea all you like, that doesn't make it any the less true. It is a commonplace among historians that the American economy boomed during and after WW II. It is also a commonplace among historians that the American economy boomed in the 1920s in the wake of WW I. In both cases Europe lay in ruins and the American economy was strong, and in both cases its strength was directly related to production for war, and when the war ended, to trade with Europe. The Marshall Plan was premised on the belief that American prosperity depended on a prosperous Europe.

None of this has anything to do with mercantilism.

Actually the data on private investment tells a different story during WWII. Yes the war effort produced a lot of weapons that get counted in GDP but that's not the same "a strong economy" (in my book). Also in 1921 the US was hit by one of the worst downturns of all times. So I'm not sure how your theory of "we do well if other do badly" works in this case.

Quoting claymisher: Is there any monetary economics you approve of? Or do you think barter is the way to go?

I doubt the Central Bank can do the things you think it can do. The role of money in the economy is so complex that it's way beyond any single Federal body (or board) to be able to do the "right" thing (if there is a right thing) at any given time. In fact, if we were wise enough as a society we would stop giving the Fed chairman more and more powers and we would go the other way, relying on more decentralized arrangements. Canada didn't experience a Great Depression even though the initial financial crack was just as bad, and guess what, Canada didn't have a Central bank at the time (for some strange reason they decided to institute one in 1935, go figure).

Quoting badhatharry: all better, again?

Yes. My impression of the overwhelming majority of these people is that they think everything was just peachy at some vague time in the not-too-distant past, when Mrs. Cleaver was their mommy and Ronald Reagan was their daddy. And non-white people knew their place.

Quoting Unit: I doubt the Central Bank can do the things you think it can do. The role of money in the economy is so complex that it's way beyond any single Federal body (or board) to be able to do the "right" thing (if there is a right thing) at any given time. In fact, if we were wise enough as a society we would stop giving the Fed chairman more and more powers and we would go the other way, relying on more decentralized arrangements. Canada didn't experience a Great Depression even though the initial financial crack was just as bad, and guess what, Canada didn't have a Central bank at the time (for some strange reason they decided to institute one in 1935, go figure).

If you're an anarchist first and foremost, and whatever theory fits in that constraint is the one you want, that pretty much leaves you with barter. I hadn't heard that about Canada. Let's see what Wikipedia sez:

Canada was hit hard by the Great Depression. Between 1929 and 1939, the gross national product dropped 40% (compared to 37% in the US). Unemployment reached 27% at the depth of the Depression

Dave said that Ron Paul completely rejects bringing things home to your district. In fact, he has often been criticized for his use of earmarks. I think Paul's defense is quite sensible: earmarks just direct money the government has already claimed and will otherwise be directed by the executive branch. There's even a Hayekian argument for them! Paul does always vote against the bills, because he votes against pretty much every bill (because they violate the constitution). Personally, I'm way more extreme than the Tea Partiers. I think replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was a big mistake. Just compare the predictions of the Federalists vs the Anti-Federalists. The former were refuted by history. I don't even approve of the war of independence. The highest standard must be set for war, and that didn't meet it. As I believe someone else noted, the idea for the "tea parties" started with activists on behalf of the Ron Paul campaign. There were a bunch of promotional ideas going on back then, like a "money bomb", "book bomb" and a blimp that would say "Google Ron Paul". But his fans were always just a very vocal but tiny

Quoting claymisher: If you're an anarchist first and foremost, and whatever theory fits in that constraint is the one you want, that pretty much leaves you with barter.

Nope. There are well established theories of free banking. Hayek wrote an essay on the denationalization of money.

I hadn't heard that about Canada. Let's see what Wikipedia sez:

Were you bullshitting us or did someone else bullshit you?

As for "I doubt the Central Bank can do the things you think it can do", for the record my own views about monetary economics are unfixed and hardly formed at all. I think the Schumpeter/chartalist/circuitist/Post Keynesian/modern monetary theory perspective on endogenous money is probably on the right track. The basic idea about endogenous money is that private banks and bank-like entities are the main factor in determining the supply of money (and that central banks aren't in complete control). For those interested check out Steve Keen's lecture and Q and A.

Your quote from Wikipedia confirms what I said: even though the blow was just as hard if not harder, it didn't last as long in Canada (I forget now where I heard about this).

Come on, nobody is stupid enough to buy that. You just wrote "Canada didn't experience a Great Depression." It clearly did.

Quoting claymisher: Come on, nobody is stupid enough to buy that. You just wrote "Canada didn't experience a Great Depression." It clearly did.

Maybe I should have said "didn't experience as long a Great Depression as the US". In the US it lasted until 1946 and clearly there was a continuum of severity and duration around the world. Of course everything is intertwined, for instance Smoot-Hawley appears to have hurt the Canadians quite a bit. OTOH Canada experienced *no* bank failures during the GD. We can quibble all day long about historical facts, but the point I wanted to make is that greater centralization (of the banking system in this case) is no guarantee of anything.

Quoting Unit: Maybe I should have said "didn't experience as long a Great Depression as the US". In the US it lasted until 1946 and clearly there was a continuum of severity and duration around the world. Of course everything is intertwined, for instance Smoot-Hawley appears to have hurt the Canadians quite a bit. OTOH Canada experienced *no* bank failures during the GD.

We can quibble all day long about historical facts, but the point I wanted to make is that greater centralization (of the banking system in this case) is no guarantee of anything.

Quibbling about historical facts? I'm sorry if actual reality interferes with your utopian capitalism. Why don't you look up Canadian and US GDP from 1929-1946? We know for sure that the centuries of private banking had lots of booms, busts, manias, and panics. While they might make brutalist claims that it's all worth it honest libertarians don't deny that those depressions happened. I've got a shelf full of books about complexity, emergence, self-organization, etc. I've read them all. Nowhere in any of them is the claim you make all the time -- that self-organizing systems produce superior results. They're full of counter-examples: Braess's paradox, the prisoner's dilemma, predator-prey dynamics, you name it. You

Quoting Unit: Actually the data on private investment tells a different story during WWII. Yes the war effort produced a lot of weapons that get counted in GDP but that's not the same "a strong economy" (in my book). Also in 1921 the US was hit by one of the worst downturns of all times. So I'm not sure how your theory of "we do well if other do badly" works in this case.

What exactly is the different story? The contemporary military-industrial complex functions on private investment too. It is still the government that supports it by purchasing weapons. The same was true during the two world wars, with additional profits coming from the sale of armaments to allies (through lend-lease etc.) My "theory" is just a historical banality. And it does not mean "we do well if others do badly." It means that production for war is profitable and that trade with ruined economies is profitable. That is a causal relation, not a hypothetical relation.

Quoting claymisher:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=...+Priorities%29

That's very interesting. I'm curious though about why the blue portion representing the tax cuts continues for as long as it does and in fact grows. Why is it assumed that the Obama administration would not act to overturn or counteract the much pilloried tax cuts?

Quoting claymisher: Quibbling about historical facts? I'm sorry if actual reality interferes with your utopian capitalism. Why don't you look up Canadian and US GDP from 1929-1946?

I just finished saying that gdp can mislead. The wikipedia article you mentioned said Canada's employment recovered very quickly. So again we're quibbling about "Great", "Greater" etc...not the point I was making, which, if you remember was in response to one of your citation claiming that the post-WWII prosperity was due mainly to the actions of the Central Bank at the time. My thesis is the Central Banks don't know what they're doing.

We know for sure that the centuries of private banking had lots of booms, busts, manias, and panics. While they might make brutalist claims that it's all worth it honest libertarians don't deny that those depressions happened.

Yes but consider two things: financial meltdowns have become more and more frequent in recent years, not less. And secondly, before the Fed was created in 1913, the US banking system was regulated by something called "unit banking" (no affiliation :-) ): in essence banks were not allowed to open branch locations. This kept banks small and fragile. So in a sense new regulation (the Fed) was introduced

Quoting Florian: What exactly is the different story? The contemporary military-industrial complex functions on private investment too. It is still the government that supports it by purchasing weapons. The same was true during the two world wars, with additional profits coming from the sale of armaments to allies (through lend-lease etc.)

My "theory" is just a historical banality. And it does not mean "we do well if others do badly." It means that production for war is profitable and that trade with ruined economies is profitable. That is a causal relation, not a hypothetical relation.

The story is that private investment, that was already at a historical low during the decade of the 30s (compared to other decades), dipped even more during WWII. I have not denied that gdp didn't rise, or that profits weren't made, by someone somewhere. I was talking about 'prosperity'. For that you can't just look at one indicator, you have to consider the whole picture, the winners and the losers. Again: doing more with more is not really sustainable, doing more with less is.

Quoting Unit: Yes but consider two things: financial meltdowns have become more and more frequent in recent years, not less.

more and more from a post wwII perspective, and beginning in the 1980's. The post WWII - 1980's period had far fewer financial meltdowns than pre WWII, when they were relatively common, and from the Reagan era onward when they were re-introduced to the economy by supply siders.

Seriously, look up the stats. Lack of a central bank didn't do anything for Canada. You got schooled on this one. Just admit you blew it.

Quoting popcorn_karate: more and more from a post wwII perspective, and beginning in the 1980's. The post WWII - 1980's period had far fewer financial meltdowns than pre WWII, when they were relatively common, and from the Reagan era onward when they were re-introduced to the economy by supply siders.

It's true. The 19th century had one panic after another. About one every ten years. And this was the free banking era. There were plenty of panics before that. It's all in Kindleberger's "Manias, Panics, And Crashes." The only period of stability was during the regulated New Deal banking era. That was also the period of America's fastest and broadest (for the middle class) economic growth.

Very nice vlog. Great insights, good chemistry, pleasant give-and-take. Hope to see these two paired again.

Quoting claymisher: It's true. The 19th century had one panic after another. About one every ten years. And this was the free banking era. There were plenty of panics before that. It's all in Kindleberger's "Manias, Panics, And Crashes." The only period of stability was during the regulated New Deal banking era. That was also the period of America's fastest and broadest (for the middle class) economic growth.

No free banking is something else.

Quoting popcorn_karate: more and more from a post wwII perspective, and beginning in the 1980's. The post WWII - 1980's period had far fewer financial meltdowns than pre WWII, when they were relatively common, and from the Reagan era onward when they were re-introduced to the economy by supply siders.

The rate of crisis started picking up in the 70s. And each time people thought there would be a "technological" solution: just devise better regulation. Instead the system has become more and more fragile. It's the opposite of engineering.

Quoting claymisher: Seriously, look up the stats. Lack of a central bank didn't do anything for Canada. You got schooled on this one. Just admit you blew it.

But neither it made anything worse. So you stand by your original point that most of the credit for the postWW2 prosperity goes to the central bank?