This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

David Stockman On The New Deal Myths Of Recovery

Tyler Durden's picture




 

In chapter 8 of David Stockman's new book The Great Deformation, the power-that-be-turned-anti-establishment-reality-seeker explains his perspective on the myths of the New Deal Recovery: "The new deal was a political gong show, not a golden era of enlightened economic policy. It shattered the foundation of sound money and inaugurated a régime of capricious fiscal and regulatory activism that inexorably fueled the growth of state power and the crony capitalism which thrives on it. But it did not end the Great Depression or save capitalism from the alleged shortcomings which led to the crash. In fact, the New Deal introduced a severe dose of economic nationalism and autarky at a time when the only hope for speedy recovery was a reopening of world trade and reestablishment of a stable international monetary régime.... in reality, the notion that the New Deal had pioneered a road map to recovery by means of countercyclical fiscal policy is mostly a postwar academic legend."

 

 

 

David Stockman Book - Chapter 8

 

(h/t The Circle Bastiat blog)

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:33 | 3554489 knukles
knukles's picture

Ah, from whence the fiction of the Keynesian "multiplier" was conjured.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:38 | 3554497 economics9698
economics9698's picture

The average unemployment rate in the 1930s was 17.2%.  FDR got it down to 12.9% in 36 but it jumped to 16.9% the next year after his idiotic union legislation which raised union wages.  The Fed doubled the reserve requirement also froom 36 to 37.

Stupid is as stupid does, 

People need to realize the elites never really want prosperity for the peasants, just power and their own prosperity.  FDR was no different, a rich pos who could care less about the long food lines or real economic prosperity.  All just a show for the ignorant masses who could never figure out the con game played on them.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:48 | 3554524 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

That's the beauty of the system. Throw the masses just enough to keep them from revolting, toss in a few distractions, some circuses, and try not to get too greedy. If greed becomes an issue throw a major war into he picture and kill off a few million serfs. Wash ,rinse, and repeat.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:55 | 3554536 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

If Stockman wrote that, I'd applaud him.  But he didn't.  

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:22 | 3554601 holdbuysell
holdbuysell's picture

Well, ok. I'll bite:

Then, who did?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:31 | 3554612 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Where do you see that paragraph in his book?  If I'm wrong and I missed it, I'll happily admit my mistake and applaud him.  P.S.  Economics9698 works for the taxpayer.   Ask him if you think I'm wrong.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:35 | 3554639 holdbuysell
holdbuysell's picture

I see. I haven't read the book yet, only read the pieces that have been provided via various sites.

Assuming that what you're describing is true, then you have a legitimate point: where did it come from?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:48 | 3554686 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So you were calling me out for missing a (non-existent) quote in a book you haven't read?   

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:09 | 3554742 holdbuysell
holdbuysell's picture

I didn't call you out on any of this thread's posts. I was passing by and saw the thread. Was curious why you thought Stockman didn't write it.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:55 | 3554712 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

I didn't see quotes so I don't think it was represented as a Stockman quote.  I have the book in front of me.  What should I look to confirm?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:19 | 3554739 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

This isn't rocket science guys.   I was saying that I would agree with what the poster said, but not what Stockman said.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:24 | 3555231 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

The Scribd window under the post shows the text as quoted.         hujel

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:40 | 3555252 BadPenguin
BadPenguin's picture

It's the FIRST TWO paragraphs of the text in Chapter 8...

 

 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:12 | 3554927 angel_of_joy
angel_of_joy's picture

Oh, the "state" apologist is at it again !

 What a bore... he sure sounds like a Krugman on a bad day...

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:42 | 3554665 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

Don't forget the "brain washing" .... public school indoctrination of both teachers and students, and the propaganda delivered by the media and "junk radio".

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:06 | 3554730 fourchan
fourchan's picture

but they are progressive lol, what idiots.  

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:47 | 3555012 Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

Although FDR is reviled and hated by three or four generations of laissez-faire capitalists, he in effect, saved the capitalist system. At that time, unlike today, the country could have very easily gone Communist.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:44 | 3555154 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Communist?  Absolutely not.  Some sort of muscluarized American version of what the fascists did in Italy only with a few differences including more private ownership?  Absolutely. 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 06:50 | 3555521 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

More likely Fascist

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 12:51 | 3556574 marathonman
marathonman's picture

There were so many communists in the FDR administration that its amazing that it didn't happen.  The fascists in the end won the day.  USA! USA! USA!

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:00 | 3555044 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"People need to realize the elites never really want prosperity for the peasants"

In an alpha-male social hierarchy, the lower males never do as well as the alphas. Government formalizes that into law and policy.

The alphas in government (inc. shadow) hate the possibility of lower males doing better than they do by using freedom and the free market.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:41 | 3554507 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Stockman has made some great observations as of late, but a lot of people literally would have starved but for the New Deal.  And the New Deal was a response to the Great Depression, so obviously there was some shit going on before he reacted with a popular program meant to feed people who were willing to work.  The program had serious flaws primarily because it did more than simply ensure that people did not starve (kind of like printing money and giving it to the banks to allow greater lending), but the economy was in the shitter before it ever came along.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:52 | 3554532 Rustysilver
Rustysilver's picture

LetThemEatRand,

Some of the FDR help to prepare for WW II. Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) ran as para military organization.  Also, a lot of young guys were so malnourished  with recruitment for WW II that school lunch programs were introduced.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:32 | 3554810 Debeachesand Je...
Debeachesand Jerseyshores's picture

Rusty Silver:School lunch programs were introduced during the Eisenhower Administration and greatly expanded under LBJ's Great Society.

 

In 1940,the Select Service Act,which passed the House by one vote,was the first peace time draft in American history.

Army doctors quickly notice that many of the draftees were malnourished by the ravages of the Great Depression.In order to combat that problem,a national program was undertaken to enrich bread with a full complement of vitamins to counteract the effects of a poor diet caused by the Great Depression.

 

 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:54 | 3554535 malek
malek's picture

You forgot to mention that it was still in the shitter after it came along.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:56 | 3554542 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I didn't forget to mention it -- I agree with Stockman that it did not solve the problem.  Ending the Fed was the right answer.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:05 | 3554728 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Hoover and FDR were the same on everything.  Both with the same results.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:10 | 3554744 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

How goes the taxpayer funded salary hypocrite?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:05 | 3554899 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Economics 9698. I'm hearing crickets.  Care to respond?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:00 | 3554550 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Good economic policies would have ended the depression allowing people to feed themselves. Hunger is a good motivator for work. Instead FDR's policies prolonged the depression and led to a major war..... Sounds eerily familiar to our current sitting FDR wannabe.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:10 | 3554553 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

People were literally getting in their 1920's cars and driving across the country looking for work.  Cites in CA put up billboards telling people to go the fuck away.   Telling a starving man that he and his family need to die because feeding them may discourage good economic policy is fucked up.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:14 | 3554582 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Government is nothing but force; it confiscates resources and redistibutes them. I may have a moral obligation to help someone out in their time of need, but that doesn't give you the right to steal money from me and conduct the transaction. It's not charitable if it requires robbing Peter. Charity is of the heart; voluntary.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:18 | 3554590 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Think outside the Mises box for a moment.  Force does not require government.  Ask every tyrant, warlord, gangster, etc. who ever used it.   Think Capone was elected?  He would have loved your idealogy that would give him free reign.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:23 | 3554605 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

False. The worst is when people think they are protected by bureaucrats, and think writing up legislation will somehow at the snap of a finger stop the problem. Black markets are always the result, and they became magnified with the recent financial crisis as the TBTF banks, spurred by knowing they would be bailed out since they are shareholders of the Fed as well knowing they could invent even more exotic derivatives beyond the scope of any bureaucrat, still accomplished precisely what the legislation was meant to prevent. 

The market offers the best protection. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:28 | 3554617 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You just hit the nail on head where Mises was wrong.  Gangsters have existed long before the public tried to get together and outlaw them.  Consult a history book of your chosing.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:36 | 3554644 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Hobbes wrote a book about that. Doesn't have a fucking thing to do with Mises.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:45 | 3554676 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Another true believer.  Can't stand the heat?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:24 | 3554775 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Oh for fucks sake, your arguments stink. Government fucks up everything it touches, 10,000 years of empirical evidence has established this fact indisputably. Get over yourself.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:31 | 3554805 Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

He'd blame Joe The Plumber for Mesopotamian hydraulic dictatorships.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:38 | 3554832 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ah yes, Joe the Plumber.  The sage of wisdom for the Rand crowd.   Because he's smart.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:22 | 3555095 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Rand's failure was having a blob of neurons that kept her from being an anarchist.

To a libertarian, the moral sphere of liberty triumphs the moral sphere of authority most of the time. That was Rand's position.

To an anarchist, liberty triumphs authority all the time.

 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 11:50 | 3556325 OneTinSoldier66
OneTinSoldier66's picture

I'd much rather deal with some inconveniences of too much freedom/liberty than the inconveniences of too much Government. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Caesar, come to mind right off the top of my head. I don't know if there are any examples of a people that have crushed themselves under a burden of too little taxation and government debt, and too much freedom and liberty.

 

If you want I suppose that we can pretend that a piece of paper called a 'constitution' can limit the size, power, and scope of Government. But that's all we'd be doing, pretending. Want to see John Boehner shed some tears again? Watch him if he gets a whiff that we might actually be starting to get free market forces that he has no power and control over, again.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:38 | 3554651 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

In free market eras such as laissez faire Britain and the U.S industrial revolution times, people with bad reputations were ostracized, and there was real frontier justice. 

There are always going to be quacks and low lifes trying to trick people. The market place quickly exposes them, though. I never said anything about them being completely eradicated. In fact, it's when government gets involved in business that the rent-seeking and corruption amplifies. Just look at the state-owned enterprises in China. Government does not go out of business when it doesn't make a profit, unlike the private sector. In fact, government failure usually means it's going to get more funding. Just look at the spending on public education. Stossel does a magnificent job relaying this and other money holes on his programs.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:51 | 3554682 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I hand it to you for your absolute Faith.  Give some thought some time to why history is replete with tyrants and gangsters taking over societies, and completely absent of examples of your ideology working in practice.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:59 | 3554718 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Again, I'm just explaining how anarcho-capitalism would work. There's nothing 'radical' about advocating things being done on a voluntary basis. I have major convictions and morals, but don't believe in using force to tell others how to live. 

I never said there was any historical example of pure laissez faire. There is no utopia on this earth. I believe liberty is a blessing, but I don't worship it like an Ayn Rand. Mankind is inherently sinful and the only way to salvation is through the blood of Christ. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:07 | 3554736 akak
akak's picture

LTER, you once again make the specious claim that simply because a perfect free-market libertarian society may have never existed, that it therefore cannot exist.  Moreover, you once again fail to recognize that there is and has been an entire spectrum, and degrees, of liberty throughout the broad span of human history, with the health and vitality of any given society having been generally if not absolutely directly proportional to the degree of freedom, and lack of coercion, within those societies.

Social intercourse and economics based on voluntary action have proven themselves innumerable times throughout history, but simply because one cannot point to a PERFECT such society, you dishonestly pretend that the effort to fight for freedom is worthless, and that coercion is the only practical basis for civilization.  Contemptible.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:22 | 3554774 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Quite the opposite.  I am arguing with black and white two dimensional thinkers.  I see colors and shades of gray.  I have said repeatedly here that I think our current system is out of control.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:38 | 3554835 Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

The system is in total control. Control is the system. More system, more control.
You, me, we're masses, resources, surplus labor, consumers, statistics, Muppets,

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:58 | 3554876 malek
malek's picture

You call it black-and-white thinkers versus your shades of gray.

I call it folks with some principles versus your (selective!) moral relativism.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:01 | 3554884 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"Moral relativism" slam = code for "he doesn't just spout back shit he read as a Freshman in college."

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:20 | 3554944 malek
malek's picture

You still don't get it.
The opposite of Moral Relativism is not Absolutism but straight Morality.
Morality by definition knows the perfect solution cannot be achieved, but constantly strives to get as close as possible to it.

What FDR did was extremely far off from the best achievable solution, and therefore your rose-coloring of starvation he "prevented" (and implying no other way could have achieved that result) is despicable.

 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:23 | 3555227 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Beliefs are the brain's way expressing its perception of how reality is, or how it should be.

If one believes in something, they might have many 'shades' to that belief, while a non-believer of that something would not have any 'shades'.

In the past, non-believers of a religion were often tortured or killed. People evolved and eventually came to understand that to kill because of someone rejecting a belief was evil, not moral or proper.

Humanity is slowly beginning to understand the similarities between killing because of religious beliefs and killing because of political beliefs. When that happens, man will have grown up.

 

 

 

 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 02:39 | 3555353 akak
akak's picture

To be honest, I believe that man will have grown up only when he stops having political beliefs, period.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 07:32 | 3555589 silvermail
silvermail's picture

What is the difference Crusades of the Middle Ages, from the modern Crusades "to the glory of democracy"? It's just different words, but the meaning is the same.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 07:46 | 3555606 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

I guess the Muslims invaded the Christian areas which inspired the Crusades whereas today they are already in the West and we are told it is a "religion of peace" by our Marxist politiical leaders

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:48 | 3555163 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

People with bad reputations were ostracized?  Where do you get this nonense?  From TV programs you grew up on a a kid?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:58 | 3555042 Dull Care
Dull Care's picture

Funny, it seems that the state's prohibition on alcohol gave him far power.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:10 | 3555200 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Yep. Just makes the black markets more lucrative. That's what all these 'wars on _____' do. I am opposed to drinking alcohol at all and support voluntary temperance movements. Changing minds through persuasion not force. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:50 | 3554695 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

FreeMktFisherMN - AMEN!  Force is the only thing the Government brings to the table .... along with redistribution of wealth .... there is nothing good about big government.  Just look at the present system.  A crash is in the works, as the system is now expanding exponentially ....

Just like posting signs at the park "Please don't feed the bears" .... the Government has been feeding the bears ... and one day, they won't have the food to feed the bears ... and the bears will become very hungry, and will learn that the hand that feeds it tastes pretty good.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:54 | 3555175 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

Telling a starving man that he and his family need to die because feeding them may discourage good economic policy is fucked up.

It is not the starving man who needs to die, it is the government do gooder that created the situation that results in the starving man that needs to die. 

The starving man could trap enough meat to feed his familiy  - but the government will tell him that such behavior is illegal without the proper permit - purchased at full face value!

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:28 | 3555238 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Posting a quote like that prevented me from giving you the + you deserve.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 03:02 | 3555370 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

And what meat is he going to trap in the city?

And if there is no wild life in the city, where in the country is he going to go? Your land?

 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 04:39 | 3555426 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

You're looking for fish amongst the treetops.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 02:56 | 3555364 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Hunger may be a motivator, but good economic policies cannot turn around an economy before someone starves to death for want of access to food.  Unless you want a massive body count in the name of ideological purity, some some accommodation to practicality must be made.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 04:41 | 3555427 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

How's this then for 'practicality':  "Do some work for me and I'll feed you."

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch! (TANSTAAFL)

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 05:39 | 3555457 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

You ask as if excess labor supply can't exist and there is always more work that a business owner is willing to pay to have done - how many people are not working in the US now?  And who is offering to pay them for work?

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 15:42 | 3557472 Marco
Marco's picture

That's nice in theory, in practice you get violent regime change.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:06 | 3554561 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

You greatly underestimate the prevalence and quality of charity that there was back then, as well as going back to when England had been first industrializing. People had morals back then and it was an embarrassment to be living on welfare. They had out of doors care at most with the 'bread of welfare bitter' so people wouldn't become numb to it and desire it. 

In fact, there were clearinghouses back in those days of industrialization where prospective charity-givers could go to make sure a cause/person seeking help was legitimate. There was tons of charity. This was all private. Just compare that all to today where scamming is the new normal as are freeloaders/EBT/SNAP users ending up as well off as a guy making 60k as an older ZH article showed.

 

And the government caused (and prolonged and exacerbated) the Great Depression. The 1920s were inflated, and this showed how inflation can still be occurring even if prices were falling, because they were...They just weren't falling enough/as much as they would have in a free market because the Fed was printing. From Mises,  "In short, the American public was nominated to suffer the burdens of inflation and subsequent collapse in order to maintain the British government and the British trade union movement in the style to which they insisted on becoming accustomed."

  Malinvestment leads to sudden crash in 1929 when everybody realizes that there is not enough real capital/supply/purchasing power to warrant different projects, and suddenly en masse everybody wanted to liquidate to dry powder. 

 

 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:12 | 3554574 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Wow, nice recitation of ideology.  Do you also consult Rand and/or Mises before you brush your teeth in the morning?  People starved in the Great Depression, charity notwithstanding.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:17 | 3554587 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

your little government 'stopgap' measures to appease pain is precisely the kind of thinking  that facilitates the expansion of the Leviathan.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:19 | 3554592 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So charity leads to constant begging too, then?  Guess we need to stop all charity lest people decide to stop working and just hang around FreeMktFisherMN's house for handouts.

The world is not black and white my ideologically color-blinded friend.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:32 | 3554627 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

False. Charity is the canary in the coal-mine to your 'arguments.' Charity is a voluntary way to help out people in need. People have hearts, you know. And there was way more soundness in morals back then such as the strength of the family and in industriousness before Zionists fooled people (and the people were complicit, I always emphasize, because they could have refused to give in to the siren songs of 'security' in exchange for liberty such as when they voted for SS to come in) into taking on debt to enjoy consumption today at the expense of tomorrow (promulgated largely due to having a world reserve currency backed by the military and other CBs thus leadin to the mindset that things like $billions/month in trade deficits 'don't matter'.) 

 

In free market capitalism people sometimes take risks that don't work out, but there is bankruptcy, and they ultimately have a chance to get back on their feet. Savings used to be a lot higher to cushion this kind of thing, too, as opposed to today's new normal of record NYSE margin, for instance. People who'd been lousy investors didn't get credit again, though, without getting a better reputation, so it wasn't some endless cycle. People had to prove their creditworthiness and the lenders had to recognize that there is such thing as default. AKA legitimate lending standards. One's reputation meant a great deal.

 

 

 

 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:42 | 3554664 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Nice Ran[d]t.    I don't have the energy to answer all of your points, but it is always amusing to me that you Mises guys talk about "free market capitalism" without explaining why the corporate form -- the ultimate in escaping personal responsibility -- is necessary or desirable.  Want risk? Try taking risk without having a corporation to hide behind. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:55 | 3554711 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Right now the system is corporatism. The corporations get to use legislation to build moats around competitors. 

 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:12 | 3554751 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

The Corporation was an organizational structure created by Lawyers, as a construct to create jobs for lawyers.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:23 | 3554780 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

correct. And corporations use government to make these laws. In a free market everything is about reputation and contracts totally voluntary. Government is what grants monopolies.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:55 | 3555176 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Asymmetric information problems anyone?  That is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am always amazed at the shocking naivety bordering on stupidity of those who think that a complex, hierachial society could function on 'reputation and voluntary contracts' alone.  Mabye lollipops and sunshine too.   It ignores almost all we know about economics, history, social & human psychology, and human behavior. 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:20 | 3555218 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

People would demand transparency in contracts, and reneging would be a severe blow to that individual's prestige going forward. People would do less business with the fellow. In Britain as it was first liberalizing/industrializing, honor and reputation meant a lot to the inventors and savants and businessmen. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:23 | 3554783 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Let's see, which demon can we blame for corporations that benefit the wealthy elite, and which are defended by those who claim they want to help the little guy by having more economic "freedom" (Mises)?  A:  Lawyers.  Everyone hates lawyers.  It's their fault!

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:14 | 3554933 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Lawyers make their money by making and interpreting laws that are created by government. In a free market it's all about contracts and sure there might be demand for folks to oversee and for there to be clearinghouses, but ultimately there is no government party of force they can turn to. 

I don't get your 'corporation' thing. In a free market it's just private entities. People voluntarily join together to form businesses, and they create private rules within their business, and shareholders or whatever know about them. As opposed to all the hoops that companies have to go through now and follow the government template for things.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 05:33 | 3554938 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

When there is government, lawyers justify themselves to prospective customers because there is a business of law and a business of politics, instead of actual productive enterprise. Many are basically rent-seekers. Just like CPAs whose profession exists precisely because there is an income tax. There would, in a free market, be demand for such professionals to maintain books/records, etc., but that would be voluntary and not a practical necessity as it is now. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:52 | 3554870 dkny
dkny's picture

Well, despite the fact that economics isn't your strong suit, you've decided to go ahead and conflate it with law. Allow me then to educate you a bit about the corporate form:

The concept of a corporation, an artificial person, in law exists for two reasons pertinent to this discussion:

  1. It facilitates aggregation of capital.
  2. It allows for perpetual succession.

I trust item #1 is self-explanatory in the context of economical development and large undertakings of investment. The corporate form does indeed draw its allure from the lack of shareholder liability, but we'll get back to that later; for now it is sufficient to say that this aspect provides for greater aggregation than would be possible under a partnership.

Item #2 obviously follows from the fact that we're dealing with an artificial person, an entity that is not liable to natural death. This is primarily beneficial to counterparties, as they do not need to worry about contracts made with the other person (i.e. the artificial one), as they know that the person will be bound by law to fullfil its obligation, regardless of shareholders, employees, and board memebers that come and go. Again, contradistinguished from a partnership, if one of the shareholders die, the corporation is not subject to any questions of ownership and obligations, as the artifical person, like the natural person, has property under its name; in a partnership a court procedure may be necessary to ascertain ownership following the passing of a partner, exercising the equitable powers of a court to certify interest by this or that person against the rest of the world.

Coming back to the subject of liability: given that the corporation is a person as far as the law is concerned, entitled to rights and subject to liabilities in effectively the same degree as a natural person, it would be silly to subject other persons to the actions of one person. The presumption at work here is that no person would violate the law intentionally, so the board and officers are responsible for maintaining compliance, and they would be subject to legal proceedings if they fail to do so, especially after given notice.

The above notwithstanding, it is always important to remember that these matters are arbitrary, and in fact one may find an example placing direct, personal liability on shareholders in the 1846 NY constitution, article 8, section 7:

The stockholders in every corporation and joint-stock association for
banking purposes, issuing bank notes or any kind of paper credits, to circulate as money, after the first
day of January, one thousand eight hundred and fifty, shall be individually responsible, to the amount of
their respective share or shares of stock in any such corporation or association, for all its debts and
liabilities of every kind contracted after said first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and fifty.

So, I guess that sums up my Ran[d]t.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:57 | 3554874 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Do you really believe that you have the first clue about how corporations work?    Rule 1 and the entire reasons that corporations exist -- shareholders and officers are not liable for corporate debts, unless they engaged in fraud or other illegal conduct.   A CEO can be paid $1B in bonunses and walk away if the corporation goes bankrupt the next year.  Am I wrong?  Show me.  And don't quote Mises or cases from the 1800's.  Give me current, binding legal authority for why I'm wrong.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:06 | 3554904 Oppressed In Ca...
Oppressed In California's picture

Go away you friggin' Marxist. I only hear this BS on college campuses.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:09 | 3554917 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

He says without answering a single fucking point I made.  Now that reminds me of college.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 03:43 | 3555387 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

The CEO isn't providing the capital.  

The stockholders and lenders are providing the capital.  They don't want to loan money to person who can die and destroy their investment in the process.  They want a borrower who can generate revenues to repay the debt or increase the equity value despite the death of the CEO or other key personnel.

They also don't wan't to be liable in the invent the company they invest in gets sued - it would really suck to be a public "servant" in the PRCA and retire at an early age only to find your CALPERS pension Corzined because because Avis, BofA, Boeing, Boston Scientific, CHC Helicopter, Citigroup, Colt Defense, Coventry Healthcare, Dave & Busters, Delta Airlines, Eastman Chemical, Ford, Goodyear, Goldman Sachs, Hercules Offshore, etc. got sued for more cash than they had in inventory.

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/investments/reports/home.xml

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:04 | 3555056 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

A Marxist?  No way, not LTER.  He says he voted for RP ;)

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:25 | 3554954 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

In a free market people wouldn't put up with the hypothetical you're bringing up. Right now though, the government makes everybody play by its rules and its templates for how businesses are to be run, and there are no alternatives. The key thing with capitalism is that there are alternative choices and people can take their business elsewhere. Right now, though, the government and its compliance costs allows for no separate system, just as the corporations like.

 

 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:34 | 3554976 dkny
dkny's picture

Oh dear, it appears that you didn't even manage to read my post, yet you still mustered a strawman argument at the end.

I'll answer your little rant just because it will help clarify more legal aspects, for the benefit of others:

  1. Officers are not liable for an artificial person's debt, as it is that peroson's debt, and not the employees' -- yes, officers are employees. This situation is no different that in a sole proprietorship: the owner is liable for any debts contracted by the management he has hired, i.e. his employees. In both cases the person can be "wiped out" by his debt: in the latter, the natural person will forefeit his assets, and in the former the artifical person will likewise forefeit his assets, both subject to bankruptcy laws. Needless to say, a smart sole proprietor will monitor closely his employees, while shareholders will do the same, through their representatives on the board of directors, lest they forfeit their equity.
  2. As I've pointed out in my prior post, there was a case of shareholder liability, hence this aspect of the issue is arbitrary (i.e. could be reintroduced nowadays as well).
  3. The existing state of affairs with billion dollar CEOs is nothing but faiilure on the part of the shareholders to keep a close watch on their investment.
  4. No mises was quoted in this or the former post, or cases (whatever that means in your head) from the 1800's.

Now, if you have anything meaningful to say, I'll reply, but if you insist on ending up with such misdirections and empty challenges, while attempting to sound sophisticated -- "binding legal authority" my ass -- you'll find yourself having to pick up your own gauntlet.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:32 | 3554971 liquid bullion
liquid bullion's picture

 " I don't have the energy to answer all of your points"

...so i'll move on to the next point that is more easily incorrectly refuted.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:13 | 3555073 Dull Care
Dull Care's picture

The state prefers large corporations that can be used for its ends instead of highly decentralized small business. The corporations benefit though a highly regulatory state which removes potential competition. Why this quid pro quo isn't completely obvious to even the dullest of dullards is beyond me.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:30 | 3555233 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Exactly. It's all about control and wealth extraction. This is another reason stock markets have been going up, is that only the big sharks are able to handle the compliance costs they basically write in legislation via their lobbyists, and they swallow up the competition. The small businesses get hosed. The publicly-traded companies' monopoly grows. Just shows how only government confers/facilitates true monopolies. In a free market there might seemingly be a de facto monopoly, but it's because they have economies of scale, and there still are competitors snatching away some of the market in most cases. 

 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 03:21 | 3555374 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Your notion of charity is predicated on excess supply, being made available in a timely fashion in proximity to acute shortage.

If there was sufficient charity in Ireland, they wouldn't have come to the US in such numbers.

Then there is whole 1980's Ethiopian cluster-fuck, lots of good Live Aid did... 

The wrong answers are plentiful, the optimal solutions are more elusive (and they have been working on the problem for over 5000 years).

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 05:39 | 3555458 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Government intervention in the economy is exactly what causes the supply/purchasing power imbalances. As I wrote elsewhere, people aren't saving anymore to build up a cushion against bad outcomes, and everything in general is more on the margin. History doesn't speak kindly to the Irish work ethic in that era.

Again, government is nothing but an organized system of theft. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:38 | 3554647 malek
malek's picture

Right, so you're saying we just needed a little New Deal redistribution to prevent starving (and there was no other better way to achieve that)
and unintended side-effects such as the state never tending to reduce such mechanisms again, have to be overlooked.

Moral relativism at it's finest, plus a strong dose of "do the easy thing now and the hard thing later (preferably by someone else)".

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:41 | 3554659 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

That's what LTER is about, malek. When the rubber hits the road, it's always 'this time is different' to him, regarding government's intervention being 'benevolent.' 

To which I respond: medicine tastes bad, but you just have to swallow it sometimes. Sobriety and thrift are blessings. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:52 | 3554703 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Is Malek's hand in his icon holding your cock?   

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:54 | 3554710 malek
malek's picture

Running out of arguments?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:02 | 3554726 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Just tired of the circle jerk.  Enjoy.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 03:57 | 3555397 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

Of course they were starving because FDR New Deal policies were geared to destroy inventory (farmers paid to dump milk, not grow ...cash for clunkers) to force prices up,  so that under employed and unemployed mofo's cant afford food, so naturally they gots to go ask massa, er uhm  Uncle Tom,  No Uncle Sugar for da handout to buy the over priced food that would have simply been given to dem if they knew the farmers dumping the milk etc.  

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:40 | 3554655 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Government doesn't fix the problems presented by human nature. In fact, it exacerbates them. We have 10,000 years of iron-clad empirical evidence proving this.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:45 | 3554671 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Again, government by definition is not voluntary. If something is so 'good' for me, one should be able to convince me such that I will voluntarily pay for it/do whatever action it is. As opposed to government which is simply an organized system of theft, regardless of the veil under which it justifies itself to its slaves. 

Government always makes things worse. Freedom leads people out of poverty. And while obviously freedom of enterprise grows the pie through productivity increases, etc., never forget the incalculable value of liberty itself. This is why the Austrians thankfully explain how value is subjective. I would rather have liberty than 'security'. 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 03:52 | 3555394 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Be careful with your 10,000 years- someone might point out that the Egyptians used to use grain instead of gold or fiat as a medium of exchange, and the Government collected taxes in grain and stored those taxes in warehouses and redistributed some of them when the weather gods didn't provide a good harvest (because of course the people weren't contributing enough charity at the nearest tax-free religious cult's temple)...

... it sickens me to write that.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 04:53 | 3555433 Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

I'll bring in Buchanan and Public Choice. Public/government is disincentived to solve problems. They are for their growth, security, prestige and jobs best served by making things worse.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:43 | 3554669 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

There is something called moral hazard and the shit hole we are currently burried in is a direct result. It applies to bankers as well as the poor. It is the demoralizing destruction of "something for nothing" and is as destructive as any drug addiction. Humans can rationalize anything if the "need" is strong enough.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:39 | 3554654 Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

So...I volunteer at the church food bank. Hundreds of families get by each month because of it. Our goal is to disappear, but for now families' lives would be hell without the free handouts. Back in the day, there were no food banks in many places, government literally saved lives. That's a fact.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:47 | 3554680 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

BULLSHIT there were no food banks. They were called soup kitchens and in the depression they fed millions. Google up the phrase you fucking retard, your browser window will fill up with pictures of depression-era people standing in line to get fed.

Do government programs like food stamps feed people? Do they save lives? Yes, but at the absolute maximum in waste, fraud, and moral hazard. Bureaucracies lack any moral basis, they are amoral at best, and profoundly immoral at worst-- and worst tends to be their natural condition.

Anybody who thinks governments should be involved in charity work of any kind is a mental midget, an emotional retard, and spiritually vacant.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:38 | 3555136 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

At my grandmothers funeral, a prominent local businessman  approached me and told me that when he was a child, many times the only meal he had for an entire day was the meal my grandmother fed him at school. 

She was the lunchroom cook at the elementary school in Palmerdale, Alabama. There was no free lunch. There were no government programs. 

She made a point to cook "extra". After the kids that could pay had eaten, the kids that couldn't pay lined up and got what was left. 

She made sure there was something left. 

No government.

No mandate.

No high taxes.

No regulations. 

Just simple kind, caring common sense. 

 

GOVERNMENT DIDNT SAVE LIVES - PEOPLE DID!

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:10 | 3554745 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

Ayn Rand illiterate, whose fault was the starvation?  What caused the economy to collapse, and folks to lose their farms .... ect? 

The Government's mission is NOT Charity.  If you beleive it is ... then I understand why you are a godless, and probably homo sexual slack jawed communist who thinks that it is OK for the Government to steal wealth from one who earned it and give it to you because you cannot feed yourself due to your lack of aptitude or drive to go out and save seed, plant, water, and harvest your own feed.  If you want charity, ask your fellow man, not the man with the gun to steal that which someone else earned.  One who depends on the Government is one who is ill equiped for survival.

Ill prepared people are always starving .... when the "fat" is eliminated in the system.  Just look at what started out as a war against poverty ... or the "great society programs".  The Government has effectively destroyed a couple generations of inner city by creating and encouraging dependency on handouts.  Go hang out in Detroit sometime .... see what the handouts created (all taken from someone else by force).

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:25 | 3554791 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ha!  It only takes a few posts to get you Randers to invoke the Goddess of your Faith.    One day you will hopefully laugh at yourself for your sophomoric love of her simplistic ideas.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 12:25 | 3556474 Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

I did not you took no objection to his recount of the abject failure of the almost century-long war on poverty.  Maybe you could move to Detroit and report back how things are fairing?

 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:05 | 3555054 Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

***underestimate the prevalence and quality of charity that there was back then***

 

OK, I get it. We can completely eliminate food stamps and welfare and I'll just send some poor bastard a turkey at Thanksgiving and Christmas and we're all good.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:49 | 3555167 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

You greatly underestimate the prevalence and quality of charity that there was back then..

Absolutely true. 

If any of you are ever travelling I-65 South to the Gulf of Mexico I invite you to detour at exit 205 and tour the State of Alabama Confederate Veterans Old Folks Home. 

It's where destitute Confederate veterans and their wives lived if they could not support themselves. The house and land was purchased privately. They had a lake where they raised fish. They tended a garden. A local doctor visited once a month. Medicines were donated by private citizens.

This old folks home operated almost completely free of the government, and the people who lived there took an active role in growing and catching their food. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Confederate_Soldiers_Home

When people care about each other and take responsibility for themselves - amazing things happen without the need for a dictatorial government.

This is not opinion, talking points or spin - this is reality. 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:57 | 3555274 FreeMktFisherMN
FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Exactly. These types of charities helped people turn their lives around by having them maintain a work ethic and earn their keep as opposed to distant, faceless bureaucrats doling out others' confiscated coin. 

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:26 | 3554607 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

You can make people do ALOT of things that they wouldn't normally do if they are starving.

"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made"

FDR wasn't talking about freedom but dictatorship!

The New Deal would NEVER have happened if the conditions for it weren't made as a prerequisite for government takeover of practically everything.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:34 | 3554636 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And yet the dictatorship didn't really start until the 1980's, when there was plenty.  Go figure.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:44 | 3554673 DangerClams
DangerClams's picture

Try reading this.

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428/ref%3Dpd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226618565&sr=8-1

Then re-think your position on dictatorship.  These wheels were set in motion a long time ago, by a 4-term president, who would have done much more damage had a war not intervened on his behalf.  When the gov't institutes price controls, claims it has control over entire industries, etc., you might begin to ask yourself if a massive centralized power structure is really what the Constitution represents, regardless of interpretation.

We can also ask ourselves who, our of the recent bevy of presidents, has acted most like FDR at the height of his statist dogma.  Bonus points if it takes you less than 8 seconds to make a guess.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:52 | 3554701 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

4 worst presidents in US history: Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Obama.

honorary mention to LBJ and Nixon.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:53 | 3554708 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Nixon rocked.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:26 | 3554795 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Reagan (deficits don't matter and let's grow the MIC until we bust) was also pretty cool.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:33 | 3554811 nmewn
nmewn's picture

So clearly the answer must be to double government debt before this fucking social worker from Chicago leaves office?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:41 | 3554841 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Apparently you cannot argue with the words I write, so time to say that I support Obama's policies.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:07 | 3554910 nmewn
nmewn's picture

You did at one time.

What "changed"? ;-)

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:15 | 3554928 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You mean that I voted for him over McCain?  Yes.  What changed and caused me to vote for Paul (not the corporatist ass that is his son, but Ron)?  His policies.  Unlike you and many inflexible Randites who subsribe to a simplistic view written decades ago by an utter hypocrite whose ideas have been proved wrong, I adjust when I see that I've made a mistake.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:43 | 3555003 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Again, I never read her but I understand what she was saying and where she came from.

Any other strawmen you wanna torch on your way to a mea culpa?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:22 | 3555087 Dull Care
Dull Care's picture

Those are my four worst as well. It's difficult to pick the bottom of the barrel. I'm tempted to say Wilson is the worst because without him there could be no FDR or welfare/warfare state.

 

Of course FDR was a total power hungry lunatic who perpetuated poverty to increase his desire for more political power. He absolutely destroyed the small business through price-fixing. The man was a complete failure at everything but getting elected. You're full of shit if you say he had a genuine desire to help people. The spending was concentrated in political swing areas and the areas hardest hit which happened to be voting Democratic at the time got scraps.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 04:05 | 3555402 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

Dont forget the fact that FDR was as big a cock hound as JFK and Clinton. 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 00:51 | 3555267 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

The first three toads are directly responsible for the wholesale slaughter of Americans.

And the fourth one? He's working on it.

I wonder what that secret briefing o the journalists was all about?

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 01:02 | 3555270 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

Says who?

My remark in regards to dictatorships is spot on.

Do you actually think that the Arab Spring Revolution was really about Democracy?

I personally really don't care about who sits in the Oval Office. But... If that person is responsible for taking food off of my dinner table, then I'll make it my mission to stop the threat to my family. No different then some family guy in North Africa.

Just saying

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:30 | 3554624 Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

Re, FDR and starvation.
How did FDR's crop price( high ), crop and livestock purchases-mass killings and burials, pouring milk down drains, motor oiling grain crops, etc of help to urban poor?
It didn't. WWII military were shocked at the malnutritional condion of young males who grew up under FDR.
FDR, Hoover, Congress, the Fed were hacks, causing, distorting, warping, twistion and smothering any recovery.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:37 | 3554646 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You'll notice that I made a point of saying that FDR's program as a whole was a failure.  My issue is that ideologically blind guys like Stockman want to blame the New Deal for a problem that pre-existed him, and ignore that it did help people even if also hurt them.   I am glad that Stockman has come around and figured out that Reaganomics was a complete disaster.  But he has an incomplete view of why it was a complete disaster.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:53 | 3554705 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

I don't think anyone is blaming FDR for creating the depression, only making it worse and last longer than it normally would have if left to free markets. And feeding the poor was the very least of the New Deal. Taxation, trade restrictions and most importantly laws restricting free trade even within our own country. Read The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes. Its a good read and it puts things into perspective.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:01 | 3554714 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

If Reagan had been allowed to complete his work on the spending side, things might have gone a lot differently. When George HW Bush had Reagan shot and hijacked his presidency, that ended that. All of Reagan's proposed non-military spending cuts were flushed down the memory hole.

But he did bankrupt the USSR so at least there was a significant beneficial outcome, despite Bush's best efforts to the contrary.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:28 | 3554802 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Do you really believe that?  Reagan was an actor who grew the federal deficit by leaps and bounds.   The Soviet Union would have fallen regardless of Reagan because it was a failed economic system.  He did take credit for it, however.  

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:51 | 3554857 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

The actual record doesnt match the Reagan legend. Government didnt get smaller, but larger. Taxes didnt decrease (at least on the middle class), they became greater. Debt expanded. The USSR was crumbling economically for a long time before the massive military spending program increases.

Reagan was  the kind of guy you liked. He was an actor. He probably meant well, but a man I corresponded with who knew Reagan well going back to his California days as governor and before said "Ronnie was a good guy, but he didn't have a clue."

I still liked the guy, but if you look at the actual economic numbers, its obvious that the 'Reagan Revolution' was not what we had believed. Finding that out was rather earthshaking for many people, and a bit depressing at the time. But truth is truth, facts are facts.

Websearch "Reagan" AND "Murray Rothbard" for well written articles from that time frame that support this view.

People seem to want to hold on to their long held visions of 'heroes' - - - FDR, Reagan, etc

These people are politicians . . . never forget that.  Unlike most people who just want to live their own lives and be with their families . . . they crave power.  Never forget that.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 23:22 | 3555093 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The Democrats have 1 mission, a larger welfare state.  Many neocon and rino Republicans have the same vision.  Reagan was one person against many statists on both sides of the political isle.  How much can one person change the system without being a dictator?  I 'm surprised they didn't try and knock him off.  Oh wait they did.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:09 | 3554913 Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

You know squat about Stockman.
Triumph of Politics, or How the Reagan Revolution Failed. 1986. First chapter titled, The Odyssey of an Ideologue.
Stockmans forgotten more theory and practice then you will ever know, unless you get a PhD in economi, elected to Congresshead the OMB, get drummed out of you party for honesty and make a private fortune.

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 04:09 | 3555408 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

Why you think the army had to come up with the sissy M1 carbine, cuz all those rickety mofo's couldnt carry a standard battle rifle from being malnurished so long.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:33 | 3554799 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

LetThemEatRand :  Youre wrong on a couple of points. Right off the bat - I don't know about your copy, but Chapter 8 as shown above is in the Stockman book.

Point two - - - it was the central bank policies that caused the Great Depression to begin with. FDR was a banker. He seems to have been fairly clueless on economics. He was a political operator and used govt policy as a club against his political rivals.  He saw that the New Deal policies weren't bringing the country out of the economic situation. That may have been part of his push to involve the country in WW 2.

In 1920-21 the Federal Reserve had been too inexperienced or flat footed to get involved in the economy. In a relatively short tiime span the economy corrected for bank driven misallocation of resources and there was little long term damage. In contrast FDR's programs helped to extend the Great Depression and was a contributor creating another World War.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 21:44 | 3554849 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Okay, I'll say it again.  What I was saying in my post is that I agreed with the poster but not Stockman.   The poster was paraphrasing Stockman and attributing to him something that I did not get at all from Stockman's chapter.  Though I thought it was quite clear, I seem to have caused great confusion so I'll accept blame for it.   But you get it now?  Stockman didn't say what the poster's paraphrase suggested.  If he did, I would have agreed with him.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 22:23 | 3554948 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

I didnt down arrow you for your last comment to me, I'm not that thin skinned.

 

 

Mon, 05/13/2013 - 02:22 | 3555338 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Of course they were starving. FDR was destroying food as part of the AAA, in order to keep prices high. High prices were the result of Bubblenomics monetary policy (just like today).

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:42 | 3554510 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

How long before the ZH neanderthals throw stockman under the bus with chris whalen and nial ferguson?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:45 | 3554516 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

When stockman comes on Squak Box and cups Bob Doll's balls in his hands like Whalen did I guess I will run him over with the same bus.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 19:55 | 3554538 knukles
knukles's picture

Fonzoola...
What comments about the planes?

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:10 | 3554562 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/10/mysterious-low-flying-planes-bother-quincy-residents/AcMy0ViD7xGvslkQJekr6K/story.html

"FAA spokesman Jim Peters would only say, “We have to be very careful this time” concerning information."

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/09/mystery-aircraft-frightens-quincy-residents/2/

The only bright side were all the people in the comments section encouraging each other to shoot one down.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:14 | 3554580 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

The public reaction to FCC stonewalling was to take one down and see what it is...

 

Yep, I saw that too and was suprised how little people care anymore what they post [or do].

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:36 | 3554642 knukles
knukles's picture

Yepster,
Saw it.  Many thanks.

Whole lotta truly crazy people around here or some that think talkin' big is bein' big.
And I'll assume much of the latter from the quality of the prepper comments.  Lotta bull about the spear, no chat about the soldier's experience.
Mucho irresponsibility.
Anybody embracing violence has never been there, done that and is takin' the very wrong path... not just here in commentary, but in life.
I abhor violence and un-peacful social upheaval.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:45 | 3554678 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

That town has been dealing with that for weeks. I saw it for 3 hours and it drove me batshit crazy. Weeks of it, coupled with the FAA saying "deal with it"....I did not mean to advocate violence as an ends to a means,...but no one up top has any checks and balances anymore.

Sun, 05/12/2013 - 20:31 | 3554626 klockwerks
klockwerks's picture

I think that would be a good start. About 100 folks waiting for it and who knows who brought it down. This is getting crazy

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!