Oops, that probably was more of an economic post than politics. Well, uh, there were a lot of political hurdles to many of the policies. FDR was in favor of deficit spending during the recession, and only tried to balance the budget in 1937 to appease critics. And he doesn't control the Federal Reserve, but many of his policies (strengthening unions' power over labor) are really bad during a deflation, and makes it less likely for companies to hire new workers.

It's hard to net out all the effects, but I'm confident the depression would have been only a recession if I was the king in 1930. Lowered tariffs. Lowered taxes. Lowered interest rates, stabilizing prices through monetary supply as opposed to destroying farm crops to create scarcity. But it would have been politically impossible to do that without the knowledge we gained from the Great Depression.

One thing that scares me about this recession is the personal debt of the common man. High credit card debt is analogous to the exploding use of installment credit in the 1920s, which was a source of "overstimulated" demand. We'll see if Obama takes the lessons of the Depression to heart.

Larry Craig is on the Senate floor right now giving a tribute to Ted Stevens.

::head explodes::

Werthless wrote: many of his policies (strengthening unions' power over labor) are really bad during a deflation, and makes it less likely for companies to hire new workers.

what does your model say is the impact of leverage scams perpetrated by financial 'professionals' on hiring prospects?


Schumpeter, my friend.

Read him (or his ilk).

nobody lives economic theory.

think of NLRA as an attempt to balance power, rather than as some purely economics contrivance.

Werthless wrote:Oops, that probably was more of an economic post than politics. Well, uh, there were a lot of political hurdles to many of the policies. FDR was in favor of deficit spending during the recession, and only tried to balance the budget in 1937 to appease critics. And he doesn't control the Federal Reserve, but many of his policies (strengthening unions' power over labor) are really bad during a deflation, and makes it less likely for companies to hire new workers.

It's hard to net out all the effects, but I'm confident the depression would have been only a recession if I was the king in 1930. Lowered tariffs. Lowered taxes. Lowered interest rates, stabilizing prices through monetary supply as opposed to destroying farm crops to create scarcity. But it would have been politically impossible to do that without the knowledge we gained from the Great Depression.

One thing that scares me about this recession is the personal debt of the common man. High credit card debt is analogous to the exploding use of installment credit in the 1920s, which was a source of "overstimulated" demand. We'll see if Obama takes the lessons of the Depression to heart.

The one indisputably bad thing was the Smoot Hawley tariff, which as you point out, was pre-Roosevelt. It is troubling that protectionism is making something of a comeback.

I really don't see tax increases coming for awhile. I do think that TARP money will be spent though.

drsmooth wrote:think of NLRA as an attempt to balance power, rather than as some purely economics contrivance.

Thank you.

It's an interesting artifact of the last thirty or so years of American political culture that unions--if not workers themselves, organized or not--have become so despised among a certain type of economic thinker that even historical actions intended to confer a minimum degree of fairness can be waved away as "unwise" and even--at least by implication--actively harmful.

I don't deny that unions are problematic in some circumstances. But the NLRA restored some balance to labor relations, and has held up pretty well. That Republicans have eviscerated it so completely in recent decades goes a long way toward explaining the last eight years--an unprecedented Golden Age for corporate profits, and jack doodly squat for most of the people who actually had the ideas and did the work.

What I'd love to see is for private unions to gain strength over the next few years while public unions--the teachers probably most of all, but other civil servants as well--weaken a little. Seems unlikely though.

Really interested to hear what our right-leaning folks (Vox, jh, etc) think of this Nate Silver post. My sense is he's onto something--probably because I well remember that same John McEnroe-esque "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY DISAGREE WITH ME ABOUT THIS?" tic from arguing with people to my left (hell, PtK often does it) in the days when Democrats were regularly blasted the way the Republicans have been the last two cycles.

There's also a somewhat obvious implication in there for why Air America hasn't really worked.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote: many of his policies (strengthening unions' power over labor) are really bad during a deflation, and makes it less likely for companies to hire new workers.

what does your model say is the impact of leverage scams perpetrated by financial 'professionals' on hiring prospects?


Schumpeter, my friend.

Read him (or his ilk).

nobody lives economic theory.

think of NLRA as an attempt to balance power, rather than as some purely economics contrivance.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN ORDERED FROM AMAZON. If you can't describe the reasoning to a relatively informed person like myself, then can you at least describe how all will be better if the people in government read him?

I think most people would gain something from reading Rothbard, Hayek, Economics in One Lesson, etc, but I find it more valuable to use arguments instead of appeals to authority.


To address the specifics of your post, do you disagree that the NLRA contributed to rising unemployment? Can you imagine the mechanism that I am describing, or did I do a poor job when I glossed over it?

dajafi wrote:Really interested to hear what our right-leaning folks (Vox, jh, etc) think of this Nate Silver post. My sense is he's onto something--probably because I well remember that same John McEnroe-esque "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY DISAGREE WITH ME ABOUT THIS?" tic from arguing with people to my left (hell, PtK often does it) in the days when Democrats were regularly blasted the way the Republicans have been the last two cycles.

There's also a somewhat obvious implication in there for why Air America hasn't really worked.

I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think it's concentrated in conservatives. Too many people refuse to engage in discussions or arguments about politics. I don't know if it's a rise in anti-intellectualism, or a rise in soundbite media campaigns, or the popularity of incendiary radio personalities. It probably is reinforced from every direction.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:Really interested to hear what our right-leaning folks (Vox, jh, etc) think of this Nate Silver post. My sense is he's onto something--probably because I well remember that same John McEnroe-esque "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY DISAGREE WITH ME ABOUT THIS?" tic from arguing with people to my left (hell, PtK often does it) in the days when Democrats were regularly blasted the way the Republicans have been the last two cycles.

There's also a somewhat obvious implication in there for why Air America hasn't really worked.

I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think it's concentrated in conservatives. Too many people refuse to engage in discussions or arguments about politics. I don't know if it's a rise in anti-intellectualism, or a rise in soundbite media campaigns, or the popularity of incendiary radio personalities. It probably is reinforced from every direction.

I don't think Silver was asserting that the trend toward echo-chamberism is limited to those on the right, and I certainly wouldn't ever say as much. His point is that among the loudest and strongest voices of those who call themselves conservatives, the refusal or inability to consider other perspectives or the possibility that strongly held views might not be 100 percent correct, maybe even as a thought exercise, has something to do with Republican political reversals and the discrediting of conservatism as a brand/governing philosophy.

edit: specifically regarding Obama, I think his willingness (some on the left viewed it as excessive willingness) to grant that the other side might have a point from time to time, and his general manner of seeming to consider both sides of any issue in a thoughtful and respectful way, was a big reason he did as well as he did among moderates and independents. The irony is that McCain was as well positioned as any Republican possibly could to do this trick... at least until he picked Palin, who's about as far from "thoughtful and respectful" as one could imagine.

Werthless wrote:IT'S ALREADY BEEN ORDERED FROM AMAZON.

what's taking them so long?

If you can't describe the reasoning to a relatively informed person like myself, then can you at least describe how all will be better if the people in government read him?

I have more modest goals - I'm hopeful you'll be better if you read him.

I've scolded you enought already. Expand your horizons - see TeeVee's artful job of summarizing in his Schumpeter Book Club thread hereabouts.

To address the specifics of your post, do you disagree that the NLRA contributed to rising unemployment? Can you imagine the mechanism that I am describing, or did I do a poor job when I glossed over it?

I don't disagree, and if you can read you understand that I probably wouldn't recommend its use as the exclusive measure of the act's consequences.

But let's play one more round of that ticky-tack form of reductionist questioneering you've started: do you disagree that unemployment is about as politicized a metric as is regularly wielded by "economists"?

I went with the free shipping, which apparently means they don't ship it right away.


Shipping estimate for these items: November 24, 2008 - November 28, 2008
1 "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy"
Joseph A. Schumpeter; Paperback; $14.40

Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC
1 "The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)"
F. A. Hayek; Paperback; $10.20

drsmooth wrote:I've scolded you enought already. Expand your horizons - see TeeVee's artful job of summarizing in his Schumpeter Book Club thread hereabouts.

I'll check it out.

To address the specifics of your post, do you disagree that the NLRA contributed to rising unemployment? Can you imagine the mechanism that I am describing, or did I do a poor job when I glossed over it?

I don't disagree, and if you can read you understand that I probably wouldn't recommend its use as the exclusive measure of the act's consequences.

But let's play one more round of that ticky-tack form of reductionist questioneering you've started: do you disagree that unemployment is about as politicized a metric as is regularly wielded by "economists"?

It has become politicized, only because people like to make a big deal when it moves from 5.5 to 5.6, when this change should be a non-story. I know you're not trying to just hand wave away the unemployment in the Depression, right? Because that's what it sounds like. Since we are talking about the severity of the Great Depression, and how the New Deal may have affected it, I decided to attack a basic premise: that the New Deal helped employment. And because government tends to report UNemployment, I presented that.

But when the government changes the incentives, as they did with the NIRA (eventually ruled unconstitutional and replaced with the NLB), people and companies react to them. So when the ability to reduce wages (in a deflation) are infringed, the expected costs to hiring a worker are raised, REDUCING EMPLOYMENT. Check out the dip in 1937-8.



I could look at GDP growth, but that is also a flawed indicator, and it shows the same basic patterns. Commissioning the a bunch of dams to be built is a severe malinvestment of funds, but it helps employment and GDP. It's probably best to look at everything.

Werthless wrote: Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC
1 "The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)"
F. A. Hayek; Paperback; $10.20

Hayek, eh?

Won't be long before you're hoppin' in the catallax

Werthless wrote: I know you're not trying to just hand wave away the unemployment in the Depression, right? Because that's what it sounds like. Since we are talking about the severity of the Great Depression, and how the New Deal may have affected it, I decided to attack a basic premise: that the New Deal helped employment.

The new deal created jobs. Is that helping employment? I don't know. Who really wants to be employed, anyway? I want to be a philanthropist, but I can't swing the dues.


Do me a favor & keep an eye on what you think Hayek might have made of teh internets. He had a thing in his later years (well after Road To Serfdom, as I recall) for 'spontaneous order', self-organizing activity, etc. It never occurred to me that he & Clay Shirky might be kindred, but who really knows anymore these days.

Werthless wrote:
Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC
1 "The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)"
F. A. Hayek; Paperback; $10.20

damn, now I've gone & wasted a perfectly good 1/2 hour....
The Road To Serfdom: cartoon version

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote: I know you're not trying to just hand wave away the unemployment in the Depression, right? Because that's what it sounds like. Since we are talking about the severity of the Great Depression, and how the New Deal may have affected it, I decided to attack a basic premise: that the New Deal helped employment.

The new deal created jobs. Is that helping employment? I don't know. Who really wants to be employed, anyway? I want to be a philanthropist, but I can't swing the dues.


Do me a favor & keep an eye on what you think Hayek might have made of teh internets. He had a thing in his later years (well after Road To Serfdom, as I recall) for 'spontaneous order', self-organizing activity, etc. It never occurred to me that he & Clay Shirky might be kindred, but who really knows anymore these days.

This is the difference between unemployment and employment. Employment numbers count the number of people with jobs. Unemployment rates measure the percent of people who want jobs and can't get them. So if you were a philanthropist or freelance novelist, you wouldn't count as unemployed. This is part of the reason that the Great Depression was seen as bad: people couldn't get jobs. An additional problem was that people couldn't buy food (crops were intentionally destroyed by the govt).

So, uh, people were starving, and the government was destroying food. And building dams. But at least they strengthened the unions, to protect the wages of the people with the jobs (at the expense of the unemployed)!

jerseyhoya wrote:Larry Craig is on the Senate floor right now giving a tribute to Ted Stevens.

::head explodes::

Was it a toe-tapper?

Werthless wrote:So, uh, people were starving, and the government was destroying food. And building dams. But at least they strengthened the unions, to protect the wages of the people with the jobs (at the expense of the unemployed)!

Sefer?

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:So, uh, people were starving, and the government was destroying food. And building dams. But at least they strengthened the unions, to protect the wages of the people with the jobs (at the expense of the unemployed)!

Sefer?

Well I wouldn't let her die.

(contemplates hitting submit)


Edit: I have no idea what that word means. I think it may have something to do with Jews.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:So, uh, people were starving, and the government was destroying food. And building dams. But at least they strengthened the unions, to protect the wages of the people with the jobs (at the expense of the unemployed)!

Sefer?

Well I wouldn't let her die.

(contemplates hitting submit)


Edit: I have no idea what that word means. I think it may have something to do with Jews.

Guy from the old board of whom this excerpt, in its barbed tone, reminded me.

Do you actually believe this, or were you just drawing an extreme for the sake of argument?