Barack Obama: Let's spend like there is no tomorrow

What Murray says about the realestate boom is correct. As a matter of fact, I never included the so called "value" of my home in my net worth because of how volital that market can be. (Anecdotally speaking its only reasonable to see that houses are being built faster than they can be sold and that will eventually flood the market). However, he is completely off the mark when he says once the real estate market stabilzes so too with the economy. Because the United States has no manufacturing capabilities, the United States economy needs to rebound in high tech industries. This isnt possible because our education system is so poor. But Murray would rather see this collapse. He is also wrong to claim that the New Deal failed. Ask anyone that can remember the depression era south (then ask them what they think about the Great Society). The NEw Deal was a system of measures (such as farm subsidies) that greatly improved our economy. There is a reason why FDR, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington are always considred to be the best President, its because it is nearly impossible to distinguish who is more important to the nation's survivial. Washington lead the nation at a time when no one else could, Lincoln obviously freed slaves and held the nation together when no one else appeared to be able to do so, and FDR rescued the nation from the bring of a second revolution to preserve the American way of life, while also seeing the United States through most of the most brutal war ever fought. Perhaps Murray's biggest flaw is that he often quotes archaic research. His quotes are from individual, while distinguished, could not have possible forseen the economy in its current existance and therfor have little relevance to the discussion in their own right. Of course they should be studied, but to simply rely on them for evidence would be the equivalent of a farmer only using techniques used in the 1960s, or a doctor only using medical advances to availablie in the 1960s. Scholars are supposed to constantly study their fields and appreciate new research (Murray may very well do this-although tenured professors are sometimes lax on this) Murray only seems to quote what was in vogue when he was in grad school a good number of years ago.

More of the company line from SJBlue, arguably the most mis/un/maleducated commentator on this site.

None of what this person says makes any sense whatsoever. This person's grasp of history and economics is almost nil, except for the company-line bunk that the government school system threw at him.

Lincoln never freed one slave. You can look it up. The Emancipation Proclamation never freed even one slave. The slaves were not freed de jure until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution . . . adopted after Lincoln was assassinated.

The principles of economics are the principles of economics. They are either correct or incorrect, not current or outdated.

Recent studies (recent, not 40 years old) conducted by Harvard professors and peer reviewed have concluded that the Hoover-Roosevelt Depression of the 1930's was exacerbated by Roosevelt's policies and programs. In 2003, economic historian Jim Powell wrote and published "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and his New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression". This book was lauded by David Landes, emeritus professor of economics from Harvard University.

All of these CURRENT works essentially confirm Rothbard's (who Murray cites to) claims repecting the deleterious effects of FDR's policies and programs on the length and depth of the Depression.

Rothbard and Von Mises enjoy a growing and increasingly influential following among modern academics in colleges and universities throughout the world. This even as the Keynesianism and neo-Keynesianism are, and have been in decline since the early 1970s. The economic theories and observation of the so-called "Austrian School" has great currency.

So much for that.

I'm not very adroit at the linking thing. Never could quite figure irt out.

In any event, I may actually be referring to the study you referenced from UCLA. I remembering reading the study when it first emerged (not long ago), but I may have either misread the source or forgotten its actual academic pedigree.

No matter. The number of economic historians and other academicians who now agree that Roosevelt's policies prolonged and exacerbated the Depression are growing in leaps and bounds. The Austrians rely upon a slightly different methodology than some of the other FDR critics, but ultimately come to the same, irrefutable conclusion.

The most entertaining expose of FDR's failures is a 1948 book entitled, "The Roosevelt Myth" by John T. Flynn (the book was reissued in 1998 in a 50th anniversary edition). Flynn was a contemporary essayist and magazine writer with a most engaging style. I highly commed the book to you without hesitation.

Try using some paragraph breaks, SJ, it makes your post easier to read and refer back to.

Anyway, Sabrin is partisan to some extent--however, his post is not a series of unbased attacks on his opponents; rather, he does present an argument which motivates his conclusion.

When you cite the number of historians that agree the New Deal was a success, refer back to the logical fallacy that I brought up, "argumentum ad populem," that the number of people in agreement with you does not prove you are right. Just because the majority of people believe in God, for instance, that is still a faulty premise to make the logical claim that there is a God.

Hoover was not the hands-off laissez-faire president you imagine him to be. Look up the Reconstruction Finance Corporation--massive bailout of the banks to infuse capital (hmmmm...); look up the unprecedented deficit that Hoover ran trying to "prime the pump." The things he tried were merely a proto-type of FDR's New Deal. Of course, he only seems relatively "idle," as you call him, when you compare Hoover to super-big-government FDR.

As for FDR's actual policies--the NIRA? First, it was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court thankfully shot it down when the case presented itself. Secondly, fixing prices and wages in a period of monetary contraction is wholly foolish and goes against the principle of market self-correction that people such as the Austrian economists argue for.

Another thing you praise is the agricultural subsidies, etc. So, FDR paid farmers to sit on their crops to keep the price of produce high--but he also wanted to fix the price of food to keep it low for the workers in the cities. Which is it?

When a speechwriter asked if he wanted to advocate lower tariffs or higher tariffs in his next speech, FDR told him to combine it.

FDR was a loose cannon given a free pass by an emergency situation. Oh wait, why does that sound familiar...

Obama bets all of this year's income tax revenue on "Maverick Murray's" next pick for the Kentucky Derby.

Hoover's efforts, that he reluctantly enacted paled in comparison to FDRs. He only took action after everyone in the world told him he had to. While Hoover did a better job that Harding and Coolidge (whose policies are too blame for the depression) He was no FDR...I was not citing a consensus as justification for the New Deal working, I was pointing out that for as many economists and historians that argue against it, there as many that argue for it...please again dont be condescending I'm sorry if i dont take the time to use AP style while typing.

Why are you so hostile? I just dont understand that? No one is telling you you are an idiot, not one is in anyway trying to make you out to be a schmuck I just dont know what in your life is so horrible that you must take it out on this cite on those you dont even know. We simply disagree, to me that means just that we disagree on facts and issues (this is both legal and possible here as far as I know), but to you it means I am somehow less than you. Strange

You don't know why because you have failed to learn the facts. There is a wide, gaping siparity between what Lincoln said in some of his speeches and in the famous debates and what he actually DID.

This is the whole point. Lincoln was a master politician, conniver and a liar, as well as a racist, big time. Read the books I cited and you will have to come to the same conclusion. The facts of what Lincoln SAID are not in dispute and are a matter of public record; what he actually DID has been either misreported or underreported by the Court Historians and Lincoln idolators. And any comparison between his several speeches shows that he contradicted himself so many times that it is almost impossible to know what he really thought on the basis of what he wrote and said.

That he openly and consistently opposed the idea of equality under the law for blacks is not in dispute. That he sponsored ON THE EVE OF THE CIVIL WAR an amendment to prevent Congress from ever interfering with southern chattel slavery is a matter of historical record and is not in dispute, even by Lincoln idolators. How slaves could have been and would have been freed without the war and without Lincon is a matter of conjecture.

I am not angry at or with you. I pity you and all those who have been deprived of the factual information you need to formulate a proper estimate of historical figures and events. I am angry at the government-school indoctrination that purposely fails to inform on critical facts that would change how people view history and therefore the current political climate. I've read the vast majority of materials available on Lincoln. It's a ponderous and growing body of work. New facts and books come out all the time. The most recent works are highly critical of Lincoln, and the scholarship is moving from cult-like, blind adoration to reality. And the emerging reality is not pretty.

I hold a Master's degree and an undergraduate degree in history. Like any good scholar, I have checked and double-checked the materials cited by DiLorenzo from the source materials he mentions and relies upon in his books. They are accurate in every dot and tittle, and have been peer reviewed by other professional historians who completely agree with DiLorenzo. So much for that. Anyway, DiLorenzo is an economic historian, not merely an economist, as is Jim Powell. In fact, these men are what used to be called "public intellectuals".

Historians don't "interpret" history (well, maybe yours do). They are supposed to write the record (all of it) and then extrapolate from that record a general understanding of the time and events in question. With respect to Lincoln, most of his idolators forgot about the first part (except for the parts they liked about him based upon their political views)) and went right on to the second. Needless to say, they are really not "scholars" at all. They are political polemicists (like Paul Krugman).

I told you that I have read most of the scholarly work now extant concerning Lincoln. I have debated James McPherson (now retired of Princeton) on some of these very subjects.

I never estimate, underestimate or overestimate anyone. Can't be bothered. I react to the materials argued and presented based upon what I know without reference or regard to the person offering them. If, however, the person who is offering the materials consistently misunderstands, miscites or otherwise offers cconsistently mistaken analyses, I conclude they are miseducated, not necessarily uneducated..., but they could be that to some degree as well.

I also hold an LLM in American Constitutional Law. You needn't offer me your mistaken view of the nature and origins of American Constitution and the law related thereto. Suffice it to say that's yet another topic you need to be reschooled on.

Like I said, if I were you, I'd demand my money back.

I voted for Obama twice – once in the primary and once in the general. The worship of the new messiah is a tad overdone though. We still have nine days until the inauguration and the adoring media can talk of nothing else: other than how Obama now thinks he will create 4 million jobs instead of 2 million jobs. Unfortunately, most people seem to believe this fairy tale. It’s like Camelot Part II. Where are the major and minor premises? The conclusion is: “therefore we will create 4 million jobs by spending, er, investing a trillion or so dollars”. How is this known? Why not spend a quadrillion dollars? Then maybe 40 million jobs will be created – or less jobs but all high paying. We can all be multimillionaires. Yesterday, I spent the afternoon with some friends, both Obama supporters who loved telling me Sarah Palin is an idiot who does not know where Russia is. They blame the crisis on Wall Street, George Bush and lack of regulation. They may be right, but they don’t know what they are talking about. Both are convinced Obama will fix everything by taking money from deep pockets and putting into other pockets. Here is the clincher. One of them used to own his current house plus a second one. The second is in foreclosure. Why? He took out an ARM on the second house with a low teaser rate and can’t understand why the rate changed and his principal started to increase instead of increase despite the fact that he did not change the size of his monthly payment. The moral of the story. If the housing market had kept on inflating, my friend would think he is a genius. However, the housing bubble burst. It is Bush’s fault and Wall Street fault and he is a victim and Obama is going to fix everything by taking money from smarter investors, or harder workers to create jobs. What a bunch of dopes in the electorate – but I guess it’s been this way at least as long as Julius Caesar started manipulating the Roman populace and I am sure long before that. By the way McCain would have been nearly as bad. But with Obama in there, responsible Republicans have a better chance of taking control four, eight or even 28 years from now. It will suck for me in the mean time – but maybe my children or their children will have a fighting chance.

Again, you must have so much fun writing that you failed to read what I wrote . . . or you misread it. I never said that historians simply report the facts. Read it again. I don't mind entertaining your materials in oblique response to my own, so long as you fairly respond. You seem to have a really big problem doing that. Try again. And remember, I never said that DiLorenzo is an historian. I said he was an ECONOMIC historian. You can look it up.

Actually, the grammar schools do teach their children about the same respecting social studies. The government high schools and colleges are very different, though, and the graduate schools are even more different. They use different texts and their teaches approach subject matter from a completely different pedagogical perspective. And it is virtually impossible for an anti-statist to get teaching position in a government-sponsored and/or subsidized school. The prevailing orthodoxy rules the political science, history and economics departments at the public colleges.

That's really the problem . . . they then prevent anti-statists from getting advanced degress and from teaching even in high school.

I have never seen a textbook used in a public high school that even suggests the truth about Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, etc. And the teachers preach the company bible at the students.

Therein lies the problem.

"They are supposed to write the record (all of it) and then extrapolate from that record a general understanding of the time and events in question." Bullhorn...if this is what you think History is Leopold is rolling over in his grave