The Euro, a monetary experiment of long planning, seems to be crumbling. As we speak, the southern European countries, often referred to as 'PIIGS' (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) are underwater in debt. The Euro plan, long in the making, may already be at its end. The carefully laid plans of Jean Monnet and Raymond Fosdick have fallen apart. The Establishment decreed that the European Union would use a fiat, paper currency called 'The Euro', and this would create a smooth trade process, and it would be economically beneficial. It has been a disaster.
I remember hearing about the Euro in the late '90's. All of the rhetoric was how it would make things better for Europe, and how 'efficient' the trading of the Eurozone would be. The European Central Bank would be in the background, at the levers, centrally controlling things, never allowing things to get too bad or too good.
How did it go horribly wrong?
The southern European countries have tended toward Socialist style economies. There are stories about exceedingly early retirements, pensions for all, hazard pay for hairdressers - it's a long list. These ideas are economically unfeasible. You can't create something from nothing. The 'money' used to fund these things is created from nothing, and it is borrowed via the floating of bonds. The northern European countries, even with their tendency toward Big Government, have less poor economies and a different mindset when it comes to work and retirement. The most noteworthy of these countries is Germany, which actually manufactures products and provides services.
Germany and the European Central Bank have been continually asked to bail out the southern European countries. Greece and Spain are so far in debt, basically at a level to be considered hopeless. The elephant in the room is that large banks in Europe have large amounts of exposure to the explosive levels of debt. These banks have huge amounts of economic and political clout, and they will not go gently into that goodnight.
As usual, note the questions that are not asked. Why use a fiat currency? Would a gold backed currency be a better choice? Why should the economies of Europe be 'linked' in the first place? There were people who predicted that this economic monstrosity would be a failure. They were called crackpots then, they're being called crackpots now by The Establishment. A good sociological experiment might be finding out how seriously wrong The Powers That Be have to be before the people lose faith in the Planners.
Here, Nigel Farage explains the the farcical nature of massive, interlocking indebtedness. When the EUR implodes, the people laughing in the background will not be 'available for comment'.
Recommended reading: "Fiat Money and Collective Corruption."
Monday, July 30, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
FB Thread of note 1
Here's a good Facebook thread I was in with two other people. Sometimes the new social media is useful. I think it would be a good idea to choose your Facebook threads wisely, and use them to increase your rhetorical skills. Being able to write well and express your opinions and thoughts clearly is an invaluable skill. I use Facebook to practice this, with my FB friends who I find to be intelligent and erudite.
Person A (original post) - "What I would like to know is if the Great Depression lasted from 1929 until 1942, how in the world does anyone expect the President to solve a Great Recession in 2-4 years? Is that logical to you?President Bush or President Reagan both presided over down economies longer than President Obama has and got 2nd terms. Both had tax increases supported by both parties.Be reasonable people or just admit that you just don't like President Barack Obama!"
Person A (original post) - "What I would like to know is if the Great Depression lasted from 1929 until 1942, how in the world does anyone expect the President to solve a Great Recession in 2-4 years? Is that logical to you?President Bush or President Reagan both presided over down economies longer than President Obama has and got 2nd terms. Both had tax increases supported by both parties.Be reasonable people or just admit that you just don't like President Barack Obama!"
Person B - Just from a historical perspective, Reagan's second term came after a significant uptick in the economy that was similar to the 2006 bloated housing market, only for it to burst in 1987 in conjunction with the S & L scandal. Bush inherited those economic problems, in addition to the national defense bills Reagan accrued, which is why he lost his second election. So it is true that, so far, Roosevelt is the only president that has been re-elected during a down economy.
Me - The gov't can't 'fix' the economy. Murray Rothbard's "The Great Depression" goes into the role of gov't interference in the 1920's and how it, and the Central Bank (FED) caused the Great Depression.
Person B - Yeah, Keynsian theory is predicated on the reality that WWII actually cured the Great Depression's lock on the world economic downturn. War literally created the demand for manufacturing, which required the millions of jobs necessary to meet that demand.
Concerning W., recall the economy was recovering from 9/11 by the time he ran for office a second time in '04, and as far as politics are concerned, that's all that matters. Had Obama been required to run last year, when the jobs numbers were significantly higher per month, it would have been a lot easier for his campaign compared to now.
Concerning W., recall the economy was recovering from 9/11 by the time he ran for office a second time in '04, and as far as politics are concerned, that's all that matters. Had Obama been required to run last year, when the jobs numbers were significantly higher per month, it would have been a lot easier for his campaign compared to now.
Me - Very true, and when folks bring up the falsehood about WWII 'solving' the Great Depression, I ask them if morally, half a million deaths are an adequate price for economic stability. This is where the threads usually end.... good pt. about election cycles..
Person B - 60 million, if you talk about across the world.
Person A - Never is war an adequate solution. Never should thousands or millions pay to create good.
The economics of the spurred-on manufacturing caused by WWII is real. That did cause the Great Depression to end. The technical aspects of moving the world's largest economy in downward spin is not simple and cannot be flexed so quickly in a 2-4 year cycle. Patience all.
The economics of the spurred-on manufacturing caused by WWII is real. That did cause the Great Depression to end. The technical aspects of moving the world's largest economy in downward spin is not simple and cannot be flexed so quickly in a 2-4 year cycle. Patience all.
Person B - But, yeah Person A, to your point concerning Obama, neutral economic experts on Wall Street have always predicted the economy would recover somewhere around 2016 or so, meaning that whoever controls the White House in this next presidential cycle could claim victory over the issue, regardless as to whether they could do much or not. Politics...
Person A - Agreed. Precisely my point.
I have been saying since 2008 that the economic crisis is structural and will not and cannot be solved artificially.
Me - OK, if you consider taking millions of working age men out of the American workforce, getting American manufacturing on war footing, borrowing massively against the taxpayer, and killing people. If that's 'curing a depression', then I'm out. Then, the Keynesians & gov't worshipping types predicted disaster as servicemen came back, the gov't budget was slashed, and taxes were lowered. The economy took off. This is the history we don't learn - especially the 'gov't budget slashed' part.
Person A - That is what caused the economic downturn in the early 1950s. Republican President Eisenhower had to increase taxes to get revenues back inline. The slashing of taxes and rapid shrinking of the government caused unintended consequences that needed to be brought back inline with increased taxes by a Republican former military hero President. After that, the economy took off and created the American dream that folks wax nostaligically about all the time now.
Me - I think there's a disconnect with 'shrinking gov't' and 'shrinking gov't budget'. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about (that Obama has allowed to run wild) was getting ramped up and the budget wasn't there for it. Eisenhower had to raise taxes to support that, under the aegis of the Cold War. Yes, the economy took off when JFK lowered taxes. The most productive single year in the US economy, ever, was 1946. The most productive decade in our history was 1879 - 1889, when the gov't was minuscule and we were on a gold standard. Henry Ford paid his workers in the early 1900's $5 a day(1/4 oz gold - do the math) the highest in the world at the time. There was no minimum wage, there were no payroll taxes, no income tax, there were no unions. How is this possible? We made the best products, at the lowest cost - the people were literate and things were really getting going for the 'regular people'. Then it all ended - the FED, Income tax, WWI -- game over man.
-------------------- end ------------
This is a surface level debate, just a voicing of opinions, jousting back and forth, but it serves a purpose for you, the writer to allow yourself to be challenged and take criticism and respond accordingly. Choose your threads carefully, use your time on social media wisely, and practice your craft. Time is the only resource you can never get back, so avoid the blabber about pop and media stars, and be productive.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Why American Schoolchildren are Stupid
-
Here is the most glaring question from this past June's US History and Government Regents. This is for 'mastery' of the subject for 11th graders in New York State.
See if you can spot the answer.
28 What was a basic cause of the Great Depression of the 1930s?
-
(1) Too many antitrust laws were passed.
-
(2) Tariffs on foreign manufactured goods were
reduced.
- (3) The distribution of income was unequal.
-
(1) Too many antitrust laws were passed.
- (4) Immigration was not limited.
If you ever are curious as to why our young citizens of The Republic are historically and economically ignorant, you can now see why. The 'answer' is: (3) The distribution of income was unequal. Of all of the bad explanations for the causes of the Great Depression, this one has to be the most incorrect and economically ignorant. The idea that the distribution of income should be, or could ever be 'equal' is one that has been dismissed even by the most rabid Marxists on the planet. It is impossible for there to be such a thing, even in the Utopian Visions that reside in the hallowed halls of academia. Not only has 'equal distribution of wealth' been seen as sort of an infantile concept, wouldn't this inequality guarantee constant depressions all over the earth? Income wasn't distributed equally in 1929, or 1944, or 1229, or 1776, or 1886, or 1986, or 2012. According to the sage Overlords of the NY State Regents committee for Historical Assessment, it is this very inequality that had to have been one of the horrid reasons for Great Depressions. By their reasoning, we should be in a constant economic depression.
It's easy to point out the limitations of today's youth. Now you can see the pure propaganda that our high school students are fed, in order to indoctrinate them into a meme that will get them away from thinking about their own wealth and welfare, and push them into the collectivist mindset. It is also too simple to leave today's high school students holding the bag. It is the adults who create wretched and foolish exams like this - exams unfit for simian consumption. Why don't we assess students with real material? The top schools got rid of short answer exams 150 years ago, stating that they were worse than useless. Oxford and Cambridge rid themselves of short answer tests, noting that they did nothing but 'train'. It is undoubtedly coincidence that our current president opined a few years ago that he was a believer in the idea that things are economically better if we 'redistribute the wealth'. This is a sinister coincidence. I recommend that all parents monitor what their children are getting as 'education' these days, as this exam question is just the tip of the iceberg. - "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
- - - Woodrow Wilson - Address to the New York City High School Teachers Association (9 January 1909)
-
Recommended reading for the true causes of the Great Depression: The Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard
Recommended reading: NEA, Trojan Horse in American Education, by Sam Blumenfeld
Video showing Peter Schiff trying to explain The Great Depression to Establishment pawns:
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Who Was Niccolò Machiavelli?
Niccolo Machiavelli did something that electrified the planet and enraged the Power Elite. He gave away the secrets of getting and keeping State Power. The Prince is his magnum opus detailing how to 'look honest' while doing the wrong thing. If this keeps The Prince in power, then the ends justifies the means. Your Overlords read this in their Elite Private School - it's still on the reading list. It was taken off your school's reading list in 1922 (or thereabouts).
There are a few works of literature that should be on the reading list of every school in the country. The Prince is one of them. Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, another treatise on how to deal with the masses, is another. Many of these books are difficult to read, but the treasure trove of information they contain is first rate. By dumbing down the American population, The Powers That Be don't have to worry about two things. They don't have to ever worry about one of the Herd getting his or her hands on the book, and if they do, the Mass Man or Mass Woman has no chance of understanding it. Look at the ads and the articles in magazines like the American Mercury or the Saturday Evening Post from the early 1900's to see what I'm talking about. Compulsory schooling has taken the literate American libertarian system and turned it into a tool for creating ignorance.
Today's political system, and the reactions to it by the people has proven Machiavelli correct on all counts. Politicians of all stripes promise the moon, and the people on the side of that guy weep and snivel and bow and scrape before their Honorable Leader. Then the guy on the other Team does the same thing and his team genuflects and tears up at every speech and stare and gape in wonder at such 'leadership' and 'growth'. It is a sight to behold.
From the Rothbard article: "The prince, he writes, must be willing to become "a great liar and deceiver," taking advantage of all the credulous: for "men are so simple" that "the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived." Or, in the immortal words of P.T. Barnum centuries later, "There's a sucker born every minute." And again, in praising fraud and deceit, Machiavelli writes that "contemporary experience shows that princes who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles." Or, in the words of another astute American social critic: "nice guys finish last."
As one might say - "simply Machiavellian".
Recommended reading "Who Was Niccolò Machiavelli?" by Murray Rothbard.
Read Below by Jeff Riggenbach.
There are a few works of literature that should be on the reading list of every school in the country. The Prince is one of them. Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, another treatise on how to deal with the masses, is another. Many of these books are difficult to read, but the treasure trove of information they contain is first rate. By dumbing down the American population, The Powers That Be don't have to worry about two things. They don't have to ever worry about one of the Herd getting his or her hands on the book, and if they do, the Mass Man or Mass Woman has no chance of understanding it. Look at the ads and the articles in magazines like the American Mercury or the Saturday Evening Post from the early 1900's to see what I'm talking about. Compulsory schooling has taken the literate American libertarian system and turned it into a tool for creating ignorance.
Today's political system, and the reactions to it by the people has proven Machiavelli correct on all counts. Politicians of all stripes promise the moon, and the people on the side of that guy weep and snivel and bow and scrape before their Honorable Leader. Then the guy on the other Team does the same thing and his team genuflects and tears up at every speech and stare and gape in wonder at such 'leadership' and 'growth'. It is a sight to behold.
From the Rothbard article: "The prince, he writes, must be willing to become "a great liar and deceiver," taking advantage of all the credulous: for "men are so simple" that "the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived." Or, in the immortal words of P.T. Barnum centuries later, "There's a sucker born every minute." And again, in praising fraud and deceit, Machiavelli writes that "contemporary experience shows that princes who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles." Or, in the words of another astute American social critic: "nice guys finish last."
As one might say - "simply Machiavellian".
Recommended reading "Who Was Niccolò Machiavelli?" by Murray Rothbard.
Read Below by Jeff Riggenbach.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
End of the Year 2012
I'm in the middle of the essay collection "A Mencken Chrestomathy", and because he writes about 'pedagogy' in a series of essays, I feel compelled to write a companion blog post. It would be difficult to equal Mencken's disdain for Organized Education, but I feel I'm coming close. Here's why.
The scuttlebutt in my district is that the History department (I refuse to use the term 'social studies') in our partner high school has been 'doctoring' grades. A reliable source tells me that this has actually been going on for at least a decade. This, however, is not news. Teachers in my district are encouraged, even strong-armed to make the grades as high as possible, as often as possible. As 90% of educrats are unable to provide any quality assessment, only passing percentage is used to gauge learning. If the passing percentage is low, a teacher risks being called 'downstairs' for a tongue lashing. All kinds of invective are hurled at the teacher in order to convince him to 'review' or 'scrub' or 're-assess' his grading policy or the grades themselves. This farcical process usually ends with the teacher changing the grade(s). Naturally, Johnny or Suzy Administrator will now brag on his resume about how amazing he was, and how great his passing percentages were. The hapless taxpayers are on the hook for this nonsense - now to the tune of $155,000. That's just for my school.
Because of this History Department malfeasance, the English, Earth Science, and yes, History Departments had to grade while being 'watched' by an educrat from either the State or BOCES. All of us are trusted to be in rooms with teenage males and females, often with the door closed, but when it comes to grading a State Exam - not so fast. Our 'watcher' had us in a room at our sister school, grading at a table with two other teachers - but there was no crosstalk, no long breaks, no "cheating" allowed. This made our lives easier. Instead of doing all of the administrative tasks that go with a NYS Regents Exam, we were only to grade, and then give the folder of graded writing to the Over Lord. Doing the grading bubble sheets was the purview of our Superior, so as he completed the (now pure) grade recording, all the usual crosstalk, grade comparing, chatter, was able to be done. I'm happy to report, however, that none of the aforementioned horrors took place. The unabashed joke that is the NY State English Regents was graded peacefully and without blemish.
At some point, this system will crash. Left out of this narrative are other cases of incompetence, calumny, cloddishness and general name calling. Twisting in the wind is the most persecuted species in American History - the American taxpayer, who craves to have his money removed from his bank account because "it's for the kids".
Recommended reading: A Mencken Chrestomathy - a collection of H. L. Mencken essays
Education: Free and Compulsory, by Murray Rothbard
The scuttlebutt in my district is that the History department (I refuse to use the term 'social studies') in our partner high school has been 'doctoring' grades. A reliable source tells me that this has actually been going on for at least a decade. This, however, is not news. Teachers in my district are encouraged, even strong-armed to make the grades as high as possible, as often as possible. As 90% of educrats are unable to provide any quality assessment, only passing percentage is used to gauge learning. If the passing percentage is low, a teacher risks being called 'downstairs' for a tongue lashing. All kinds of invective are hurled at the teacher in order to convince him to 'review' or 'scrub' or 're-assess' his grading policy or the grades themselves. This farcical process usually ends with the teacher changing the grade(s). Naturally, Johnny or Suzy Administrator will now brag on his resume about how amazing he was, and how great his passing percentages were. The hapless taxpayers are on the hook for this nonsense - now to the tune of $155,000. That's just for my school.
Because of this History Department malfeasance, the English, Earth Science, and yes, History Departments had to grade while being 'watched' by an educrat from either the State or BOCES. All of us are trusted to be in rooms with teenage males and females, often with the door closed, but when it comes to grading a State Exam - not so fast. Our 'watcher' had us in a room at our sister school, grading at a table with two other teachers - but there was no crosstalk, no long breaks, no "cheating" allowed. This made our lives easier. Instead of doing all of the administrative tasks that go with a NYS Regents Exam, we were only to grade, and then give the folder of graded writing to the Over Lord. Doing the grading bubble sheets was the purview of our Superior, so as he completed the (now pure) grade recording, all the usual crosstalk, grade comparing, chatter, was able to be done. I'm happy to report, however, that none of the aforementioned horrors took place. The unabashed joke that is the NY State English Regents was graded peacefully and without blemish.
At some point, this system will crash. Left out of this narrative are other cases of incompetence, calumny, cloddishness and general name calling. Twisting in the wind is the most persecuted species in American History - the American taxpayer, who craves to have his money removed from his bank account because "it's for the kids".
Recommended reading: A Mencken Chrestomathy - a collection of H. L. Mencken essays
Education: Free and Compulsory, by Murray Rothbard
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Our Enemy The State - book review
Albert Jay Nock's book Our Enemy, The State, was published in 1935. I've written before about Nock and his seminal essay "Isaiah's Job". There are a few serious reasons to discuss the 77 year old work of a man who died in 1945.
Our Enemy, The State, continues Nock's thesis that there are two main ways that people pursue successful outcomes: A) the productive, or economic means, or the B) parasitic - political means. Nock analyzes the main philosophical and political threads leading up to, and including the founding of these United States. He uses historical examples to support his premise. His book is an intellectual stemwinder - written in such a manner and referenced with names and events that spur the intellectually curious reader to further exploration and study. I recommend it without reservation. It can be read for free here.
An early example of State Power negating and shrinking the practice and philosophy of the much stronger Social Power occurs early on with regard to the Johnstown Flood. "When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too depleted for the like exercise, but the general instance would be to let the State see to it."(p. 6) Nock is right about this, and it has gone further today. We've seen this in every natural disaster in the U.S. People wait for FEMA to fix their problems. As they are paying absurd amounts of their earnings in tax, they are waiting for the less competent, less capable, more corrupt institution to 'solve' their problems. The Katrina Disaster is Nock's premise writ large. On a micro level, how we deal with the homeless reflects this aspect of our society. Because there are ham fisted government 'programs' that deal with the poor, the social power that used to deal with the poor and indigent has atrophied severely. I see precious little charity when it comes to the homeless in NYC - after all, aren't their shelters and welfare for them?
Early on in the book Nock calls forth the statist / fascist philosophies of Hegel and Fichte. (As a side note, the fact that he refers to these to philosophers is indicative of our education system today. There are few schooled Americans who know who these two people were. The fact that Nock cavalierly refers to them shows how dumbed down our education system has become). "Thus, for example, when Hitler says that 'the state dominates the nation because it alone represents it', he is only putting into loose popular language the formula of Hegel, that 'the State is the general substance, where of individuals are but accidents'. Or, again, when Mussolini says, 'Everyting for the State; nothing outside the State; nothing against the State,' he is vulgarizing the doctrine of Fichte, that 'the state is the superior power, ultimate and beyond appeal, absolutely independent.'" (p. 22) The State is the new Religion. Nock saw, during the regime of Hitler and Mussolini, what these reigns of terror were about. Note, how what we would call the 'mainstream media' of the day, as well as the subject of 'history' in school today is starkly silent about who were the early identifiers of the governmental horror shows that became the Statist and Socialist killing machines. Nock shows particular skill going further back in history and explaining how land expropriation is the first thing that the State does, and all oppression, of whatever kind, follows this baseline act.
In Our Enemy, The State, you get a preview of what one sees today with regard to the state. Unthinking acceptance, drone like approval, all couched in a childlike 'debate' between Team Red and Team Blue. When one mentions negative facts about the State, various members of the herd rise to the occasion to defend their deity - oftentimes with strong language. Nock excels at pointing out this fact using a writing style and footnotes that send the reader into a web of history and social theory. He summarily crushes socialist shibboleths (poverty in industrial England was caused by laissez faire), shows disdain for the intellect of the American electorate, and correctly pins the ills of society on the correct culprit - the State.
Our Enemy, The State, continues Nock's thesis that there are two main ways that people pursue successful outcomes: A) the productive, or economic means, or the B) parasitic - political means. Nock analyzes the main philosophical and political threads leading up to, and including the founding of these United States. He uses historical examples to support his premise. His book is an intellectual stemwinder - written in such a manner and referenced with names and events that spur the intellectually curious reader to further exploration and study. I recommend it without reservation. It can be read for free here.
An early example of State Power negating and shrinking the practice and philosophy of the much stronger Social Power occurs early on with regard to the Johnstown Flood. "When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too depleted for the like exercise, but the general instance would be to let the State see to it."(p. 6) Nock is right about this, and it has gone further today. We've seen this in every natural disaster in the U.S. People wait for FEMA to fix their problems. As they are paying absurd amounts of their earnings in tax, they are waiting for the less competent, less capable, more corrupt institution to 'solve' their problems. The Katrina Disaster is Nock's premise writ large. On a micro level, how we deal with the homeless reflects this aspect of our society. Because there are ham fisted government 'programs' that deal with the poor, the social power that used to deal with the poor and indigent has atrophied severely. I see precious little charity when it comes to the homeless in NYC - after all, aren't their shelters and welfare for them?
Early on in the book Nock calls forth the statist / fascist philosophies of Hegel and Fichte. (As a side note, the fact that he refers to these to philosophers is indicative of our education system today. There are few schooled Americans who know who these two people were. The fact that Nock cavalierly refers to them shows how dumbed down our education system has become). "Thus, for example, when Hitler says that 'the state dominates the nation because it alone represents it', he is only putting into loose popular language the formula of Hegel, that 'the State is the general substance, where of individuals are but accidents'. Or, again, when Mussolini says, 'Everyting for the State; nothing outside the State; nothing against the State,' he is vulgarizing the doctrine of Fichte, that 'the state is the superior power, ultimate and beyond appeal, absolutely independent.'" (p. 22) The State is the new Religion. Nock saw, during the regime of Hitler and Mussolini, what these reigns of terror were about. Note, how what we would call the 'mainstream media' of the day, as well as the subject of 'history' in school today is starkly silent about who were the early identifiers of the governmental horror shows that became the Statist and Socialist killing machines. Nock shows particular skill going further back in history and explaining how land expropriation is the first thing that the State does, and all oppression, of whatever kind, follows this baseline act.
In Our Enemy, The State, you get a preview of what one sees today with regard to the state. Unthinking acceptance, drone like approval, all couched in a childlike 'debate' between Team Red and Team Blue. When one mentions negative facts about the State, various members of the herd rise to the occasion to defend their deity - oftentimes with strong language. Nock excels at pointing out this fact using a writing style and footnotes that send the reader into a web of history and social theory. He summarily crushes socialist shibboleths (poverty in industrial England was caused by laissez faire), shows disdain for the intellect of the American electorate, and correctly pins the ills of society on the correct culprit - the State.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
The Great Depression
BOOK REVIEW - Murray Rothbard's The Great Depression
Here's the tale we're told: "Herbert Hoover was a free market enthusiast, and his capitalist, Republican Party principles were ineffective against the crash of 1929. Only the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a good Democrat, saved the US economically. FDR came in and he saved the country from the Great Depression via the New Deal, and, eventually, World War II".
The above myth is the classical story taught to students in the school systems today. Hoover was a hands off, somewhat evil man, and FDR was a cuddly and wholesome 'traitor to his class' and helped the little guy and the country rise up out of the ashes of the Great Depression. What Murray Rothbard does in his book The Great Depression is totally destroy this completely fabricated story. If the old adage 'history is written by the victors' is true, then the Hoover / FDR era is certainly proof. Rothbard leaves no stone unturned in his analysis of the run up to the Hoover presidency, and the Hoover term itself. The Austrian economists correctly state that the economic errors of the business cycle are present during the boom - and Rothbard shows this to be true in his analysis of the years 1921 - 1932. Not only was there government intervention in the economy during the 'Roaring 20's', but there was massive government intervention during Hoover's presidential term. The idea that Hoover was a laissez - faire free market capitalist is absurd, and The Great Depression proves it conclusively.
Notes from The Great Depression
- "Since the government and its controlled banking system are wholly responsible for the boom and since government is largely responsible for aggravating the depression, we must necessarily concentrate on these acts of government intervention in the economy." (82) The first third of the book is devoted to competing economic theories and how they explain the business cycle. Our economy, since the advent of Central Banking, has gone through ups and downs. This 'business cycle' has been explained by various schools of economic thought. Rothbard analyzes the cycle itself, and then the manner in which the theories explain it. As the other theories are found wanting, Rothbard, with his analysis and evidence, uses the Austrian theory of the business cycle to walk the reader through the many government interventions (currency manipulation / bank credit meddling etc.) during the boom of the '20's.
- With regard to intervention in the agricultural sector of the economy: "With the Federal Farm Board (FFB) generally acknowledged as a failure, President Hoover began to pursue the inexorable logic of government intervention to the next step: recommending that productive land be withdrawn from cultivation, that crops be plowed under and that immature farm animals be slaughtered - all to reduce the very surpluses that government's prior intervention had brought into being." (209) Rothbard explains the absurdities of the Hoover administration with regard to agriculture. In his ham fisted attempts to control and 'manage' the supply and demand of commodities, Hoover, when faced with failure, suggests asinine policies such as these. The level of irony goes even higher, and is the part of the story that you are NEVER told - the FFB was chaired by the president of International Harvester Co. - Alexander Legge. Yes, big business was in the process of cartellization and attempted control of the American economy, through their friends in government. Not only did Hoover interfere, it was the Big Corporation that handled the details. This brings us to possibly the most shrouded and sinister story behind both the Hoover New Deal and FDR's New Deal.
- The Swope Plan: "In September 1932, Gerard Swope, head of General Electric, far surpassed the radicalism of his old public works proposal by presenting the Swope Plan to a convention of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. The Plan, which garnered a great deal of publicity, amounted to a call for compulsory cartellization of American business - an industry was to be forcibly mobilized into trade associations, under Federal control, to regulate and stabilize prices and production, and to prescribe trade practices." This would "... coordinate production and consumption". (245) This Big Business cartel, became what you and I know as the New Deal's National Recovery Administration. While the NRA was struck down as unconstitutional by the Scheckter case, the principles were pushed continuously to the point that we, in 2012, have a cartel of 6 banks controlling 70% of the nation's banking. It was Big Business' desire to stifle competition and limit new competition that was the impetus behind the New Deal. The fairy tale you get in school is absurd to the point of being intellectually criminal. Hoover, to his credit, was horrified by the Swope Plan, and refused to back it. He was told that if he backed it, he'd be reelected, and if he rejected it, he'd lose. For more information on this, see Hoover's memoirs.
This is just a minuscule representation of the amount of unsound meddling by government during the boom of the '20's, and the new departure from laissez faire by Hoover post 1929. Prior to Hoover, governments had done nothing to interfere with the government, and the business cycle corrected itself, as it always does, and it did in 1921. We've been taught, through the fallacy of authority, that we need a 'leader', a 'manager', to steer us through the hard times. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rothbard on recessions - he explains how the philosophy of government intervention changed:
Here is Tom Woods giving you the details of how government NON INTERVENTION works. This is a story from American history hidden from you. You're to think of government as the thing that will solve all problems:
Here's the tale we're told: "Herbert Hoover was a free market enthusiast, and his capitalist, Republican Party principles were ineffective against the crash of 1929. Only the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a good Democrat, saved the US economically. FDR came in and he saved the country from the Great Depression via the New Deal, and, eventually, World War II".
The above myth is the classical story taught to students in the school systems today. Hoover was a hands off, somewhat evil man, and FDR was a cuddly and wholesome 'traitor to his class' and helped the little guy and the country rise up out of the ashes of the Great Depression. What Murray Rothbard does in his book The Great Depression is totally destroy this completely fabricated story. If the old adage 'history is written by the victors' is true, then the Hoover / FDR era is certainly proof. Rothbard leaves no stone unturned in his analysis of the run up to the Hoover presidency, and the Hoover term itself. The Austrian economists correctly state that the economic errors of the business cycle are present during the boom - and Rothbard shows this to be true in his analysis of the years 1921 - 1932. Not only was there government intervention in the economy during the 'Roaring 20's', but there was massive government intervention during Hoover's presidential term. The idea that Hoover was a laissez - faire free market capitalist is absurd, and The Great Depression proves it conclusively.
Notes from The Great Depression
- "Since the government and its controlled banking system are wholly responsible for the boom and since government is largely responsible for aggravating the depression, we must necessarily concentrate on these acts of government intervention in the economy." (82) The first third of the book is devoted to competing economic theories and how they explain the business cycle. Our economy, since the advent of Central Banking, has gone through ups and downs. This 'business cycle' has been explained by various schools of economic thought. Rothbard analyzes the cycle itself, and then the manner in which the theories explain it. As the other theories are found wanting, Rothbard, with his analysis and evidence, uses the Austrian theory of the business cycle to walk the reader through the many government interventions (currency manipulation / bank credit meddling etc.) during the boom of the '20's.
- With regard to intervention in the agricultural sector of the economy: "With the Federal Farm Board (FFB) generally acknowledged as a failure, President Hoover began to pursue the inexorable logic of government intervention to the next step: recommending that productive land be withdrawn from cultivation, that crops be plowed under and that immature farm animals be slaughtered - all to reduce the very surpluses that government's prior intervention had brought into being." (209) Rothbard explains the absurdities of the Hoover administration with regard to agriculture. In his ham fisted attempts to control and 'manage' the supply and demand of commodities, Hoover, when faced with failure, suggests asinine policies such as these. The level of irony goes even higher, and is the part of the story that you are NEVER told - the FFB was chaired by the president of International Harvester Co. - Alexander Legge. Yes, big business was in the process of cartellization and attempted control of the American economy, through their friends in government. Not only did Hoover interfere, it was the Big Corporation that handled the details. This brings us to possibly the most shrouded and sinister story behind both the Hoover New Deal and FDR's New Deal.
- The Swope Plan: "In September 1932, Gerard Swope, head of General Electric, far surpassed the radicalism of his old public works proposal by presenting the Swope Plan to a convention of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. The Plan, which garnered a great deal of publicity, amounted to a call for compulsory cartellization of American business - an industry was to be forcibly mobilized into trade associations, under Federal control, to regulate and stabilize prices and production, and to prescribe trade practices." This would "... coordinate production and consumption". (245) This Big Business cartel, became what you and I know as the New Deal's National Recovery Administration. While the NRA was struck down as unconstitutional by the Scheckter case, the principles were pushed continuously to the point that we, in 2012, have a cartel of 6 banks controlling 70% of the nation's banking. It was Big Business' desire to stifle competition and limit new competition that was the impetus behind the New Deal. The fairy tale you get in school is absurd to the point of being intellectually criminal. Hoover, to his credit, was horrified by the Swope Plan, and refused to back it. He was told that if he backed it, he'd be reelected, and if he rejected it, he'd lose. For more information on this, see Hoover's memoirs.
This is just a minuscule representation of the amount of unsound meddling by government during the boom of the '20's, and the new departure from laissez faire by Hoover post 1929. Prior to Hoover, governments had done nothing to interfere with the government, and the business cycle corrected itself, as it always does, and it did in 1921. We've been taught, through the fallacy of authority, that we need a 'leader', a 'manager', to steer us through the hard times. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rothbard on recessions - he explains how the philosophy of government intervention changed:
Here is Tom Woods giving you the details of how government NON INTERVENTION works. This is a story from American history hidden from you. You're to think of government as the thing that will solve all problems:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)