APP - Misguided Monetary Mentalities - by Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman

Lowaicue said:
I have thunk. There is no single answer but in a system where you get a new president every four years and three of those years are electioneering there is little opportunity for considered thought. Sometimes what we call democracy isn't. And sometimes, even when it is, it shouldn't be.
National economies are just that, national, and there must be either consensus (which you will never have) or a non democratic government (which you will never have).
Then you have to remember what it was that made you the greatest economy in the world and realise what it is about your national character that has screwed that up. Look at nations that are coming out of the recession before you. Look at economies that are thriving.
If you prefer your own system then live with it and stop complaining. And, for chrissakes, ditch the idiots who will fight your present president over anything rather than try to understand.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of democracy anyway, much preferring the system we created over here. People are too stupid to rule. I would also argue that in 1920 our presidents weren't stuck electioneering early the way they do now. That's a rather recent problem brought on by the rapid development of communication technologies.

Also, national character is difficult to maintain, or get back in a free society. Democratic principles do ultimately destroy themselves, as human vices tear down the system. I do not dispute any of this, and I am a huge critic of America's national character, which has consistently fallen prey to the evils of populism over the principles of republican virtue for eons.

That said, I support market liberalism because it represents some of the core liberties upon which America was founded, and because it leans toward freedom, whatever baggage it may carry.
 
Threedee said:
I'm not a fan of democracy anyway, much preferring the system we created over here. People are too stupid to rule. I would also argue that in 1920 our presidents weren't stuck electioneering early the way they do now. That's a rather recent problem brought on by the rapid development of communication technologies.

Also, national character is difficult to maintain, or get back in a free society. Democratic principles do ultimately destroy themselves, as human vices tear down the system. I do not dispute any of this, and I am a huge critic of America's national character, which has consistently fallen prey to the evils of populism over the principles of republican virtue for eons.

That said, I support market liberalism because it represents some of the core liberties upon which America was founded, and because it leans toward freedom, whatever baggage it may carry.
Click to expand...

Good answer. One of the reasons that China has been so successful (sorry to tub thump again), is that it doesn't have national elections. The job of governing has no externally imposed time limits. Beijing does not have to 'act now' to ensure election next year. The philosophy is one in which time is not an important factor but that the right time will surely come. Hence the attitude over Taiwan. Unity will come ... some time.
They had put their home economy second after exports for many years so when exports all but dried up the opportunity came to concentrate on the home market. With no democracy it was an easy transition.
We can't do that in the west. We are crowded out by naysayers and individualism and the ticking clock of the next election.
 
Lowaicue said:
Good answer. One of the reasons that China has been so successful (sorry to tub thump again), is that it doesn't have national elections. The job of governing has no externally imposed time limits. Beijing does not have to 'act now' to ensure election next year. The philosophy is one in which time is not an important factor but that the right time will surely come. Hence the attitude over Taiwan. Unity will come ... some time.
They had put their home economy second after exports for many years so when exports all but dried up the opportunity came to concentrate on the home market. With no democracy it was an easy transition.
We can't do that in the west. We are crowded out by naysayers and individualism and the ticking clock of the next election.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but when the government does something incredible stupid, who do you turn to?

The Great Leap forward. The cultural revolution. Both acts of unparalleled idiocy that could only happen in a situation in which everyone is too fearful to contradict something clearly and plainly stupid. The instability of democracy is the very foundation of its success. Undemocratic regimes have some advantages but they all crumble when ideological fools take over.
 
And is the modern situation in China worth those twin colossal failures? Certainly not. China would've been much better under a Democratic regime.
 
Watermark said:
And is the modern situation in China worth those twin colossal failures? Certainly not. China would've been much better under a Democratic regime.
Click to expand...

Believe me, China would have failed under a democratic system.
 
My real problem with other systems, and the reason why I support republican government, is that they exist merely to preserve established orders, and not to promote individual liberty. An autocracy could arise and promote good morals, which I would find admirable if said autocracy promoted my morals, such as a Catholic theocracy, but idealistic systems like this always break down as not everyone can agree on most things. An autocracy that exists merely to keep a flag flying, a people at large, or an ideology prevalent may just as well not exist, because its not defending anything worthwhile. Once the Roman Republic failed, why did it matter if Roman society was kept alive for another 500 years? It may just as well have died then and there.

Democracies, as demonstrated by the Greeks, and republics, as demonstrated by the Romans and by the subsequent city-states of Italy, will ultimately crumble. People will try to bend them to their twisted ways, and then as the national character deteriorates and the system becomes corrupted, it becomes a matter of time. But these two systems are the only ones which exist for a valid purpose, which is why they are worth defending.
 
Threedee said:
You think. Leftist econimists have never been able to explain the thumping success that the Harding years saw in turning around the US economy of 1920-21. It doesn't compute with their worldview.
Click to expand...

Harding served only from 1921 until he died in 1923.
 
belme1201 said:
Harding served only from 1921 until he died in 1923.
Click to expand...

Yes, and before he died, the economy took off like a rocket. Harding is routinely trashed by historians for being a passive, and not an activist, president, who liked to keep his hands out of other people's business, and not expanding the powers of the presidency. He also had several crooks in his administration, which resulted in the infamous Teapot Dome scandal in which minor participant, Albert Fall, was prosecuted, "taking the fall," as we say. The scandal pales in comparison to most presidential intrigue which has happened since, but people like to point to all of the "corruption" of the Harding administration as well. Harding was also popular with the ladies and may have had an illegitimate child.

Harding was certainly not the most intelligent man to hold the office, but he made up for it by following Washington's example of selecting intelligent men for cabinet positions and letting them do the heavy lifting while he set the tone and agenda. Like Washington, his most influential officer was his treasury secretary (Andrew Mellon).

Also of note, as one of his first acts as president, conservative Harding pardoned socialist Eugene V. Debbs, who was in prison for pissing off liberal Woodrow Wilson by opposing WWI and thus violating the Sedition Act. Debbs had run his usual presidential bid in 1920, but the twist is that he ran it from inside of prison! Harding thought he was wrongly imprisoned, whatever Debb's politics may have been, and set him free.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
Yes, and before he died, the economy took off like a rocket. Harding is routinely trashed by historians for being a passive, and not an activist, president, who liked to keep his hands out of other people's business, and not expanding the powers of the presidency. p
Click to expand...

If that were true they'd select Coolidge. Coolidge usually ranks in the bottom half, because people see his laissez-faire policies as proceeding the great depression, but Hoover gets most of the blame for actively refusing to do anything about it.

Harding was just incompetent at what he did. He appointed crooks on patronage and even admitted he didn't belong in the office. He also gave speeches which were pure nonsense, I mean, they had big words and all, the big words just didn't fit together. It's just like there's something wrong up there.

Harding may not have done the most harm, but he was the most incompetent while doing hardly any good, which is why he's such a popular choice forlast place. Presidents who did horrible things, like Roosevelte, usually did some very good things as well, and so there's a split in people who consider him horrible and good. Harding was just pretty much all bad.
 
Watermark said:
If that were true they'd select Coolidge. Coolidge usually ranks in the bottom half, because people see his laissez-faire policies as proceeding the great depression, but Hoover gets most of the blame for actively refusing to do anything about it.

Harding was just incompetent at what he did. He appointed crooks on patronage and even admitted he didn't belong in the office. He also gave speeches which were pure nonsense, I mean, they had big words and all, the big words just didn't fit together. It's just like there's something wrong up there.

Harding may not have done the most harm, but he was the most incompetent while doing hardly any good, which is why he's such a popular choice forlast place. Presidents who did horrible things, like Roosevelte, usually did some very good things as well, and so there's a split in people who consider him horrible and good. Harding was just pretty much all bad.
Click to expand...

People give FDR a pass because of pure partisanship in many cases. I tend to give him a pass because of WWII, which is the other reason why people do it.

Hoover did not sit by like his predecessors would have and let the market correct itself. He fucked with the economy, and gave FDR many of his ideas for the New Deal. And yes, it is Coolidge who had the famous quote about his greatest accomplishment being "minding my own business," but it was a model that Harding followed also. Harding's inaugural address about how the market works and what he plans to do is actually quite good. There are some good Youtube bits showing Coolidge spouting off random nonsense, but I'm not sure about Harding aside from him being the one to coin the grammatically incorrect, "normalcy."
 
Hoover "fucking with the economy" is an Austrian myth. As soon as the depression started, he raised taxes and cut spending in order to balance the budget.

He started some public works like the Hoover dam but it wasn't much. The RTF was only started after he lost the election. Notably, FDR's stimulus really wasn't large enough either, which is the main reason the depression lasted so long, until the economy got some real stimulus in the form of WWII.
 
Watermark said:
Hoover "fucking with the economy" is an Austrian myth. As soon as the depression started, he raised taxes and cut spending in order to balance the budget.

He started some public works like the Hoover dam but it wasn't much. The RTF was only started after he lost the election. Notably, FDR's stimulus really wasn't large enough either, which is the main reason the depression lasted so long, until the economy got some real stimulus in the form of WWII.
Click to expand...

The economy got good when the market recovered in 1950. Also, a lot of entrepreneurs like the Levitts (granted, I think housing developments are boring) popped up in the postwar, which worked out nicely.

FYI, the Austrians are correct, the Keynsians are evil.
 
Watermark said:
Hoover "fucking with the economy" is an Austrian myth. As soon as the depression started, he raised taxes and cut spending in order to balance the budget.

He started some public works like the Hoover dam but it wasn't much. The RTF was only started after he lost the election. Notably, FDR's stimulus really wasn't large enough either, which is the main reason the depression lasted so long, until the economy got some real stimulus in the form of WWII.
Click to expand...

ib1 says this doesn't matter
 
Threedee said:
The economy got good when the market recovered in 1950. Also, a lot of entrepreneurs like the Levitts (granted, I think housing developments are boring) popped up in the postwar, which worked out nicely.

FYI, the Austrians are correct, the Keynsians are evil.
Click to expand...

It's safe to say that if we had taken the Austrian course we'd be in the dark ages right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top