Three Malignant Overlays

41 posts / 0 new

Three Malignant Overlays
In 1890, Americans lived in a society without income taxation, the IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public (i.e., government) schooling, farm subsidies, foreign aid to dictatorships, minimum-wage laws, price controls, paper money, the Federal Reserve, Departments of Education, Labor, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security, occupational licensure, immigration controls, huge standing army, military-industrial complex, foreign military bases, CIA, kidnapping, rendition, torture, indefinite detention, kangaroo military tribunals, and state-sponsored assassinations of citizens and non-citizens.

Sure, it wasn’t a perfectly free society. There were various economic regulations, especially at the state level. There were land grants to the railroads. There were government-business partnerships. There were trade restrictions. There were Jim Crow laws and suppression of voting rights.

But the fact remains: There were none of those enormous things enumerated above that characterize the society in which we live today.

What happened? Given that Americans lived without all those things, how is that we were born and raised in a society that has them all?

The answer lies in the fact that after a fierce ideological battle that took place in the early to mid-20th century, statists succeeded in having three overlays placed on American society. Those three overlays were socialism, interventionism, and imperialism.

Socialism came in the form of the welfare state. Yes, it’s true that the government didn’t nationalize everything like what happened in Cuba, North Korea, and other countries that embraced pure socialism. Instead, knowing that Americans would never go along with anything that extreme, American statists settled for foisting socialistic programs upon our land. That’s where progressive income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, foreign aid to dictatorships, food stamps, and other welfare-state programs come into play.

The idea of the welfare state was that people’s income and wealth would be unconditionally subject to the government’s power to tax. The IRS would collect the tax and the government would distribute it to others. Over time, people on the receiving end would become dependent on whatever dole they were receiving, reinforcing the power of the government to continue expanding the reach of the welfare state.

Interventionism came in the form of the government’s power to regulate, control, manipulate, and interfere with economic activity. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 reflected the beginnings of the ideological battle between the advocates of the free-market and the advocates of statism that would culminate in the next century.

With interventionism, we’re talking about such things as tax incentives, price controls, economic regulations, stock market regulations, Federal Reserve monetary manipulation, paper money, minimum-wage laws, drug laws, and fiscal policy. The idea was that it would be the government’s job to bring economic prosperity and personal responsibility to the nation. That presidential candidates from both political parties run on the basis of which candidate would be the better “job-creator-in-chief” reflects the mindset of interventionism.

The idea of turning America into a military empire has its roots in the 1898 Spanish American War, when the U.S. government insisted on taking control over Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines after helping them secure their independence from the Spanish Empire. Then there was the military intervention in World War II whose aim was to make the world safe for democracy and to end all wars in the future. It didn’t work. Within a short time, there was Adolph Hitler and the Nazis and World War II. That was followed by the Cold War, wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the formal establishment of a “national-security state,” characterized by an enormous permanent and ever-growing military force and intelligence apparatus not only here in the United States but also abroad. The concept of a national-security state was integrated with a foreign empire of military bases all over the world, with the goal of maintaining “order and stability” by installing pro-U.S. regimes around the world. Coups, invasions, occupations, assassinations, and interference with politics in foreign countries became the foreign policy of the United States, maintained in large part by the Pentagon and the CIA. Recognizing the new order of things, the federal judiciary declined to declare any of it unconstitutional, effectively immunizing the military and CIA from judicial review.

The problem is that many Americans have no idea that these three overlays were placed over American society. They think that Americans have always lived under the same system.

Even worse, Americans have been inculcated with the notion that all this statism is “freedom.” That’s why they so proudly sing how proud they are to be living in a “free” country and so grateful that imperial troops are defending their “freedom” thousands of miles away. They epitomize Goethe’s dictum that none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

The truth is that these three overlays are not freedom. They are the opposite of freedom.

Equally important, these three overlays are the root cause of America’s many woes.

Out of control federal spending and debt. Decades of monetary debasement (i.e., inflation). Ever-growing welfare-state spending. A national of people dependent on the welfare dole and scared to death of losing it. An IRS with the power to terrify and destroy Americans. Monumental economic distortions producing regular cycles of boom and bust and permanent unemployment. A vicious drug war that does nothing but enrich drug cartels and government officials and infringe on the liberty and privacy of Americans. A vast, permanent, and ever-growing military establishment and intelligence apparatus that, as President Eisenhower pointed out, constitutes a grave threat to our democratic way of life. Horrible anger and hatred toward the United States on the part of foreigners culminating in threats of terrorism. Support of and partnerships with brutal foreign dictatorships. Torture, denial of due process, warrantless searches, incarceration without trial in military dungeons, assassination.

All of this is the product of those three malignant overlays: socialism, interventionism, and imperialism.

Unfortunately, all too many Americans continue to believe that it’s possible to fix these three overlays and make them work. It will never happen. The overlays are inherently defective. No matter what reforms are put into place, the problems will only continue to get bigger and bigger.

There is only one solution to America’s many woes: Lift all three malignant overlays. Restore a free society, the free market, and a constitutionally limited republic to our land. There is no other way.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

I think people who continually post articles written by others should be banned.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Until the driving force behind those three overlays is nuetralized nothing can or will be changed. And that driving force is the take over of government by the elite and the corporations they control. Until corporations' unequal protection (limited liability) giving them an unfair advantage under the law and their personhood rights (freedom of speech) is removed the overlays will not be lifted. Government will continue to be manipulated to enrich the elite and their politician puppets, including the current community organizer in charge.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Pierpont:

I think people who continually post articles written by others should be banned.

Since I don't continually do that, I guess that doesn't apply to me.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You have to remember that even now the United States is a very young country. Those "overlays" are part of our growth which always occurs in the young. We have yet to fully mature as a country. We can't lay claim to thousands of years of existence.

Without taxation and regulation we would probably not have made it this far. Look at the power and wealth accrued to those like the Hilton's and the many others who have attained and then hoarded wealth over a small period of time. Without these "overlays" there's a very good chance that within a couple of hundred more years we as a country will be just like the countries across the pond that we ran away from. I'm not claiming that everything has worked out just dandy or that it will but simply allowing any person , family , or group to accumulate power over a long period of time will lead to the end of a free and democratic society.

I think that there will be many more experiments in "overlays" over the years and some will succeed and some will fail. The point is to not become static and to never let anyone become the "King" of The United States.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote Pierpont:

I think people who continually post articles written by others should be banned.

Since I don't continually do that, I guess that doesn't apply to me.

You do it enough to show the world you can't think for yourself.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner: ...Ever-growing welfare-state spending. A national of people dependent on the welfare dole and scared to death of losing it.

So this is it: a couple of unsupported sentences and the same old debates that LysanderSpooner starts and never finishes or tries to prove.

Apparently, poverty never existed in the US before 1890. Everyone had an education. Workplaces were safe and friendly. Everyone could buy a home. We were a highly advanced technological and industrial giant. Hospitals used advanced technology and charitably gave to everyone who was sick. The Depression of 185? never happened. Most people were Middle Class. Firms outsourced their products with no ill effect. Indeed, there were no tarriffs. And the environment in the cities of Philadelphia and New York? Why, the private corporations laid gold bricks along the streets and everyone had clean running water. The skies were clean - because who damage a profitable resource? And all the slaughterhouses were clean as a whistle because big companies would be scared of poor people suing them.

LysanderSpooner, you are an idiot.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I enjoyed the main part of your reply. You made some good points. Calling her an idiot was quite offensive. Chill out dude.

noparty
Joined:
Oct. 31, 2011 7:14 pm

I'm sure I don't need to add ass kissing remarks here.

But the question whores beg us to answer them, every day.

The debate over nothing rages on.

I suggest, (even from me!), that every leftie-whatever- Obama supporter boycott responses to right wing culprits.

I don't mean silence them, just completely ignore them.

Go on with your discussions about how we can make a more perfect union, as if they are invisible.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Amen, sir. Brilliant.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

removed

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Well said Dr. Econ!

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

Poverty can be directly linked to the disintegration of the faimily. Today seventy percent of balck children are born to out of wedlock mothers, as compared to 25% in 1965.

Here are some excerts from an atricle by Kay Hymowitz;

"If black pride made it hard to grapple with the increasingly separate and unequal family, feminism made it impossible. Fretting about single-parent families was now not only racist but also sexist, an effort to deny women their independence, their sexuality, or both. As for the poverty of single mothers, that was simply more proof of patriarchal oppression. In 1978, University of Wisconsin researcher Diana Pearce introduced the useful term “feminization of poverty.” But for her and her many allies, the problem was not the crumbling of the nuclear family; it was the lack of government support for single women and the failure of business to pay women their due."

Full text, http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdbdwGiVQ8gMAx4xXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1bDIxMjVxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDA0OV8xNTQ-/SIG=127do0q4o/EXP=1344637680/**http%3a//city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer’s money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family — which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions, began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to ‘help.’”

— Thomas Sowell

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote LysanderSpooner: ...Ever-growing welfare-state spending. A national of people dependent on the welfare dole and scared to death of losing it.

So this is it: a couple of unsupported sentences and the same old debates that LysanderSpooner starts and never finishes or tries to prove.

Apparently, poverty never existed in the US before 1890. Everyone had an education. Workplaces were safe and friendly. Everyone could buy a home. We were a highly advanced technological and industrial giant. Hospitals used advanced technology and charitably gave to everyone who was sick. The Depression of 185? never happened. Most people were Middle Class. Firms outsourced their products with no ill effect. Indeed, there were no tarriffs. And the environment in the cities of Philadelphia and New York? Why, the private corporations laid gold bricks along the streets and everyone had clean running water. The skies were clean - because who damage a profitable resource? And all the slaughterhouses were clean as a whistle because big companies would be scared of poor people suing them.

LysanderSpooner, you are an idiot.

You're comparing the U.S. in 1890 to the U.S. in 2012. Why don't you compare the U.S. in 1890 to the rest of the world in 1890?

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair was inaccurate.

Compare the length and severity of recessions and depressions pre-Fed with those after the Fed

What passes for an education in some parts of this country is a joke! The white population was more literate in 1890 that today. The black population, for obvious reasons,was not as literate then but was making great strides from 1870 to 1910: 20% to 70%.

Similarly, poverty was going down before the Great Society.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote LysanderSpooner: ...Ever-growing welfare-state spending. A national of people dependent on the welfare dole and scared to death of losing it.

So this is it: a couple of unsupported sentences and the same old debates that LysanderSpooner starts and never finishes or tries to prove.

The welfare-state is growing continually? More people than ever aren't dependent on some form of government welfare? (and I include Medicare and Social Security) While it's subjective, I do think more and more people are scared to death of losing welfare. Hardly unsupported.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote LysanderSpooner: ...Ever-growing welfare-state spending. A national of people dependent on the welfare dole and scared to death of losing it.

So this is it: a couple of unsupported sentences and the same old debates that LysanderSpooner starts and never finishes or tries to prove.

The welfare-state is growing continually? More people than ever aren't dependent on some form of government welfare? (and I include Medicare and Social Security) While it's subjective, I do think more and more people are scared to death of losing welfare. Hardly unsupported.

When you basically have nothing, losing the little something you get in order to survive is kind of substantial don't you think? Look at how rich people act at the thought of losing the little extra in tax savings. They can afford to pay a little more in taxes but you would think that their way of life was coming to an end. So we should begrudge those who actually have a legitimate fear? Nobody is dependent on the government for survival because they want to be.

If there were enough decent paying jobs in this country then the people reliant on welfare would drop substantially. It's not about being lazy, it's about availability of work. If we concentrated a little more on production and a little less on profits the available work opportunities would grow enough to stop the growth of welfare dependency and eventually start lowering it. The population continually expands and the workers are working longer and the corporations are sending more and more jobs overseas. It's a perfect storm for an expanding welfare need.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Gee-No mention of capitalism. I guess the Crash of 1929 was caused by socialism.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

How did capitalism cause or even contribute to the great depression? Or is that belief just consistent with your anticapitalist ideology? Because capitalism did not cause the crash or 1929 or the great depression. And it was government interferance by FDR that prolonged it.

"What caused the Great Depression? There is a huge amount of disinformation spread on this subject. The Great Depression was 100% caused by the Federal Reserve. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a propaganda artist or a fool."

"In 1929, the Federal Reserve insiders decided to jack up interest rates worldwide, causing a depression. The insiders knew what was coming. They stopped issuing loans and converted all their holding to cash."

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdSjLVCVQrRYAIFNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1cmozaXZjBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDA0OV8xNTQ-/SIG=13ca4mqmq/EXP=1344652619/**http%3a//fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2008/04/federal-reserve-caused-great-depression.html

It disgusting when progressives contiinually blame free market capitalism for all the economic woes. When we have not had anything close to free market capitalism since before the turn of the last century. What we have is government interference and over-regulation that kills free enterprise small business in favor of giant corporations in collusion with government. Corporations and thier lobbyists write regulation that puts small businesses at an economic disadvantage, therefore unable to compete. Instead of a free market capitalist system, what we have and have had since the 1913 is a corporate/government collusion.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Pierpont:

I think people who continually post articles written by others should be banned.

I agree. I don't mind someone posting a lot of the artlcle if there is original commentary also. Seems to be something in the right wing brain that wants to do this. To me, it's the mark of a spammer. At least he's not posting bogus viral right wing emails which is pretty common on most right wing bubba-blogs. Some of these blogs consist entirely of stuff people just cut and paste....ie....."Didja see this?....Didja read this?......" with no real original discussion, which doesn't surprise me, since after all it's conservatives we're talking about.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What has become disgusting is the ideological certainty of the 'free market' advocates. We have exposed this ideology and its fatuous notions and utopian fantasies. We have pointed out that "markets' are regulated in order not to have thuggery and control by the mob. The vacuum is not freedom and it is filled by warlords and landlords. Try to reason with them.

Graeber does find one non-statist free market in his 5000 yr. history of Debt. It happens in the Islamic Middle Ages where a trade route linked several separate caliphates. The interdependence of the useful trade made all involved interested in its health and preservation to the point that the merchants swore their honor to Allah to be generous rather than "win" in the "art of the deal." Instead of competition, real comparative advantage made the exchange value added and efficient, and driven by generosity and pride in giving more than one got in return instead of "making money."

Our cultural understanding of economics is flawed, and given that it is amazing that we get as much real economics from the field as we do. We give "the economy" too central a role in human life and devalue society by making it the product of the economy treated as an Idol. It is why saving the banks is more important than saving our neighbors, those aspiring American Dreamers! To call down the banks calls up a whole conversation on money and commerce. Our soul has been sold for an economic bottom line.

What we need is a fair market in a social context where commerce serves a human purpose. There are economic laws, but the economy does not exist in "natural law." It is a political design for commerce and public revenues, and it is supposed to be about "liberty and justice for all," not whatever bottom line the gods of Wall St. give to us. Even if you take out Wall St., there is no barter world out there. It is all utopianism.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote Brookesmith: ... Poverty can be directly linked to the disintegration of the faimily. Today seventy percent of balck children are born to out of wedlock mothers, as compared to 25% in 1965.

So white people aren't poor?

What are you really saying? Feminism causes poverty?

How silly is that?

Let me make your arguement for you - government welfare programs to single head of households encouraged single heads of households. But you can easily prove that wrong - welfare programs in other countries didn't create more single heads of households - it doesn't differ with different bennefits across our states - and there should have been some effect from welfare reform - which imposed time limits and work requirements - but there was none. Nor did out of wed lock births decline when bennefits declined in the 70's and 80's.

But it does take an idiot to realize that out of wedlock births may not cause poverty. It is highly contradictory for a Libertarian to assume that people who marry are suddenly made rich, while those who choose not to marry will remain poor. In fact, it is likely that people simply choose not to get married, and poverty is caused by obvious factors such as the fall in low skilled manufacturing employment or rise in health care costs.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Brookesmith:

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer’s money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family — which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions, began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to ‘help.’”

— Thomas Sowell

So you are actually saying that the federal government, by offering help to poor people, caused them to be poor.

And let's see if I can trace out your arguement: poor people are so stupid and lazy that if they are offered help, they will not find alternatives to look for a better job? Isn't that kind of arrogance is what every hates about rich fat Republicans - and is so unbecoming on poor sincere libertarians? This kind of racist clap trap is way beneath you.

And state government programs and private programs that offer help to poor people, somehow are just fine?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote LysanderSpooner: ...Ever-growing welfare-state spending. A national of people dependent on the welfare dole and scared to death of losing it.

So this is it: a couple of unsupported sentences and the same old debates that LysanderSpooner starts and never finishes or tries to prove.

Apparently, poverty never existed in the US before 1890. Everyone had an education. Workplaces were safe and friendly. Everyone could buy a home. We were a highly advanced technological and industrial giant. Hospitals used advanced technology and charitably gave to everyone who was sick. The Depression of 185? never happened. Most people were Middle Class. Firms outsourced their products with no ill effect. Indeed, there were no tarriffs. And the environment in the cities of Philadelphia and New York? Why, the private corporations laid gold bricks along the streets and everyone had clean running water. The skies were clean - because who damage a profitable resource? And all the slaughterhouses were clean as a whistle because big companies would be scared of poor people suing them.

Quote LysanderSpooner:...You're comparing the U.S. in 1890 to the U.S. in 2012. Why don't you compare the U.S. in 1890 to the rest of the world in 1890?

Actually, poverty existed all over the world. It wasn't till we had mixed economies with large middle classes and welfare systems that poverty was substantially reduced - much less in this country than others - but still here.

Quote LysanderSpooner: ...The Jungle by Upton Sinclair was inaccurate.

You are trying to bait with me a blind link to a propaganda site about a meat packing plant that uses soap. Great. I'm sure all workers were terribly safe back then.

Quote LysanderSpooner: ...Compare the length and severity of recessions and depressions pre-Fed with those after the Fed

The FED made plenty of mistakes - but my point was that we had severe depressions before the FED. And, after the Great Depression - we were doing quite well until Volcker gave us one in 1981 and of course Bush's Great Recession. Other countries were able to do much better.

Quote LysanderSpooner: What passes for an education in some parts of this country is a joke! The white population was more literate in 1890 that today. The black population, for obvious reasons,was not as literate then but was making great strides from 1870 to 1910: 20% to 70%.

Illiteracy went from 20% in 1870 to less than half a percent before Reagan started the great retrenchment.

An entire middle class was built on public education systems the world over. It was a revolutionary act - where as previously it was just an elite group who graduated high school. Enrollment rates started at around 50% and are now 91% in 1991. Similiar numbers can be shown for those graduating high school (despite the lack of progress for black graduation rates in the last decade or two), and there has been a huge increase in the numbers going to college. The proportion of black and other races males with 4 or more years of college rose from 12 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1991, with a similar rise for black and other races females.

The lack of progress in education in recent years has been us falling behind other countries that have stronger public education and union systems.

Quote LysanderSpooner:Similarly, poverty was going down before the Great Society.

The 'Great Society' was simple welfare for the poor. Currently these programs are designed to lift one and half million out of poverty - and they do.

As I explained previously, you actually have experiments in this area - cuts in bennefits in the 70's and 80's and welfare reform in the 90's. None of this had an effect on poverty, because poverty is a function of the economy, and not poverty programs. Out economy suffered enourmously from outsourcing and the disapearence of low skilled jobs. Germany - that makes a huge commitment to apprentiship programs and making education nearly free - has done far better.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote LysanderSpooner: ...Ever-growing welfare-state spending. A national of people dependent on the welfare dole and scared to death of losing it.

So this is it: a couple of unsupported sentences and the same old debates that LysanderSpooner starts and never finishes or tries to prove.

The welfare-state is growing continually? More people than ever aren't dependent on some form of government welfare? (and I include Medicare and Social Security) While it's subjective, I do think more and more people are scared to death of losing welfare. Hardly unsupported.

As to 'welfare' for the poor:

More people are on welfare because of the recession and the economy. The rules have not changed - in fact they are far more strict because of welfare reform. And bennefits and programs for a variety of subjects have been falling since the 1980's. Even food stamp rules were tightend up to have time limits and work requirements.

As to Medicare and Social Security - of course, we have an aging population. You can't blame that for anything!

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Lies and er... Spoonerisms will blame anything for anything, and nothing.

Word games by monkeys typing, hoping for Shakespeare.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote Brookesmith: How did capitalism cause or even contribute to the great depression?

There are lots of economic articles, published in peer reviewed papers that do this. Even in Libertopia, a gold rush can cause a bubble. In a nut shell, it was wild speculation by banks, agricultural progress sending people into the cities, and a housing and land bubble. You can't blame the FED, because England also had one. The Soviet Union did not. China did not - and many people think it was because they were not on the gold standard.

Quote Brookesmith: "What caused the Great Depression? There is a huge amount of disinformation spread on this subject. The Great Depression was 100% caused by the Federal Reserve. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a propaganda artist or a fool."

Anyone who thinks anything is caused 100% is a fool.

Quote Brookesmith: "In 1929, the Federal Reserve insiders decided to jack up interest rates worldwide, causing a depression.

Well, that's a long old discredited theory. First of all, the fact that real money did not change much shows that monetary factors were not critical. Second, the Libs argue that money was too much in the 20', and the in fact the FED agreed, and hence bought gold. Banks, of course, were free to set rates. On the other hand, Japan had nearly zero rates and it had a Great Recession too.

Most economists do blame the FED for prolonging the recession - but the FED was listening to conservatives saying not to increase money and to stay on the Gold standard. In fact one of the only predictors of economic success for a country was how quickly it got off the gold standard and devalued it's currency!

I know you are angry at the 'statists'. But my hatred for you is unbounded. Why? Because you never study the other side. It took me a two minute wikki seach to find all kinds of theories about the Great Depression. There are libraries dedicated to it. For you to blame people for not agreeing with you is simply incredible. I, on the other hand, have read much on all the conservative theories - including Friedman and Hayek. I know they are full of crap because I am familiar with their writings.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

All of the theories and crap that you read cannot change the (f)actual events of history that prove the fed orchestrated the money supply and manipulated interest rates so that they and their elite could use insider info to profit enormously. Read my post on your Libertarian bullshit thread about the FED.

It was actually the fed that spread the lie that wild speculation caused the depression, and you keep reading people that have bought those lies. I wonder what they made publishing shit that continued the lie that you have ignorantly bought into.

But, because YOU have read and drank the kool-aid, that makes you an expert, bullshit.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Brookesmith:

All of the theories and crap that you read cannot change the (f)actual events of history that prove the fed orchestrated the money supply and manipulated interest rates so that they and their elite could use insider info to profit enormously. Read my post on your Libertarian bullshit thread about the FED.

If you can't respond to my post, then just admit it.

Quote Brookesmith:..It was actually the fed that spread the lie that wild speculation caused the depression

I don't think I have read any articles by the FED saying that wild speculation caused the great depression.

Not only do the facts disagree with you, but you make these bizarre statements that have no meaning.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Dr Econ, " In a nut shell, it was wild speculation by banks, agricultural progress sending people into the cities, and a housing and land bubble."

Where did you get this idea? The bankers created the margin loan with its margin call feature to foster more wild speculation.

Dr Econ, "Not only do the facts disagree with you, but you make these bizarre statements that have no meaning."

Specifics?

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Brookesmith:

Dr Econ, " In a nut shell, it was wild speculation by banks, agricultural progress sending people into the cities, and a housing and land bubble."

Where did you get this idea?

Just some summaries of explanations of the Great Depression.

Quote Brookesmith:The bankers created the margin loan with its margin call feature to foster more wild speculation.

Yes, that was a problem as well.

Quote Brookesmith:Dr Econ, "Not only do the facts disagree with you, but you make these bizarre statements that have no meaning." Specifics?

[/quote]

Specifics? Do I have to re-post what I just wrote? IF you ignored it then, you will ignore it now.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Dr Econ, "You can't blame the FED, because England also had one. The Soviet Union did not. China did not - and many people think it was because they were not on the gold standard."

The depression was worldwide.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Brookesmith:

Dr Econ, " In a nut shell, it was wild speculation by banks, agricultural progress sending people into the cities, and a housing and land bubble."

Where did you get this idea?

Just some summaries of explanations of the Great Depression.

Quote Brookesmith:The bankers created the margin loan with its margin call feature to foster more wild speculation.

Yes, that was a problem as well.

Quote Brookesmith:Dr Econ, "Not only do the facts disagree with you, but you make these bizarre statements that have no meaning." Specifics?

Specifics? Do I have to re-post what I just wrote? IF you ignored it then, you will ignore it now.

[/quote]

Dr. Econ,

Read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. It's free here.

According to historian David Gordon, it is the "single most important book on the Great Depression". Rothbard applied Austrian business cycle theory to America, showing how Benjamin Strong at the New York Fed promoted expansionary monetary policy during the 1920s. When disaster struck, Hoover, the first New Dealer, pursued interventionist measures that made matters worse.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:

Read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. It's free here.

According to historian David Gordon, it is the "single most important book on the Great Depression".

According to Jack, Jill never wanted to go up the hill, and pushed him down, breaking his crown. Every action having an equal and opposite reaction, Jill also tumbled after him. This is the single most important facet of this important discussion.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Good article, LysanderSpooner. The last sentence makes my point about the fed and their role in the expansion period right before the big crash of 1929. And the players that had advance knowldge of what the fed was going to do.

"Murray Rothbard stressed that the stock-market bubble of the late 1920s — fueled by the Fed's policies — did not coincide with rampant consumer-price inflation - but did produce "inflation" if the term is used to describe a situation in which the money supply is expanding and the dollar is losing value.[29]"

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

Lysander wrote: Those three overlays were socialism, interventionism, and imperialism.

Socialism came in the form of the welfare state. Yes, it’s true that the government didn’t nationalize everything like what happened in Cuba, North Korea, and other countries that embraced pure socialism

poly replies; You do realize that state-ownership isn't socialism, don't you? It's statism.There is no socialist state anywhere. None are even close.

Even the early libertarian Benjamin Tucker knew the difference between socialism and statism. He defined himself as a socialist....and rejected state ownership of any means of production. I reject it myself except for public utilities such as electric power, water, transport and banking. Ditto I reject universal health care like the British model. I prefer the Japanese universal health care model...private Dr.'s/hospitals.

Direct worker ownership of their own livelihood either as an individual or through a co-op is socialism. Economic as well as political freedom.

The Libertarian Tucker (a self-defined socialist) understood that and advocated it. Economic as well as political freedom. He made the clear distinction between socialism and statism. That's something current libertarians and most on the left can't seem to grasp. Those on the right insure that they never do.

Depressions: Two primary and related causes.

1. So much money is withdrawn from economies and thrown into financial paper, it creates bubbles. Bubbles pop.

2. Withdrawls from the money supply channeled into finance and financial paper, over time, deplete the real economy's ability to provide enough circulating money for the production and exchange of goods. Watch that unfold in Europe. It's easier to clearly watch it as an observer rather than as a participant of it in your own country.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

.

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"The Illuminati, in their first attempt, had come terrifyingly close to gaining control of the world

. This was prevented by Tsar Alexander I of Russia.
The head of the family, Nathan Rothschild, awaited the day that his family would get revenge by destroying the Tsar and his family, which they did in 1917."

It is commonly believed that Communism is the opposite of Capitalism, so why would these capitalists support it?
Respected researcher, Gary Allen, explains it as follows, "Socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but it is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."

As to your causes of depressions , Poly, the fed has contol of the supply of money. They can inflate it or deflate it anytime they want.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Brookesmith:

"The Illuminati, in their first attempt, had come terrifyingly close to gaining control of the world

. This was prevented by Tsar Alexander I of Russia.
The head of the family, Nathan Rothschild, awaited the day that his family would get revenge by destroying the Tsar and his family, which they did in 1917."

It is commonly believed that Communism is the opposite of Capitalism, so why would these capitalists support it?
Respected researcher, Gary Allen, explains it as follows, "Socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but it is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."

As to your causes of depressions , Poly, the fed has contol of the supply of money. They can inflate it or deflate it anytime they want.

"What exactly do you think you are trying to say?"

From the Thesaurus of Useful Responses to Right Wingnuts

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote LysanderSpooner: Dr. Econ, Read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. It's free here.

Are you kidding me?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Brookesmith:...did produce "inflation" if the term is used to describe a situation in which the money supply is expanding and the dollar is losing value.

But the dollar did not lose value.

Why don't you guys just give up? You obvioiusly don't understand your own sources.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote anonymous green:
Quote Brookesmith:

"The Illuminati, in their first attempt, had come terrifyingly close to gaining control of the world

. This was prevented by Tsar Alexander I of Russia. ...

"What exactly do you think you are trying to say?"

From the Thesaurus of Useful Responses to Right Wingnuts

And they call you crazy....

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system