The rise of the Tea Party, the Congressional minority imposing its will; it's all happened before.
It's been a perennial argument on BC Politics as to what were the causes of the Great Depression and why it lasted so long. The conservatives blame FDR and the liberals defend him. So I decided to look again, and I found a few interesting, indeed disturbing, parallels between the political worlds of then and now.…
Article comments
76 - roger nowosielski
Nature of the Socratic method, Jordan. A well-posed question should contain the germ of an answer.
77 - Jordan Richardson
Okay?
78 - roger nowosielski
That was it. You answered it.
79 - Jordan Richardson
Pleasure doing business with you. :)
80 - Clavos
Although, in fairness, the same should be said of about 99.99999 percent of all politicians.
Quoted for Truth.
81 - Kenn Jacobine
Glenn #44.
You are starting to get it. When "austerity" measures kick in that is when the bubble bursts because the articial stimulus is pulled away and the phony boom is exposed. The point is that the boom time is phony because it is dependent on government stimulus - low interest rates or government spending. Have you ever heard the Fed chairman say they will raise rates to bring the economy in for a soft landing? Next time you hear that (probably not for another 10 years or so) beware that another dwnturn is coming. It's like clockwork. The Fed keeps rates artificially low, this causes a bubble in some sector (housing, stocks, dot.com), then rates go up and the bubble bursts. What is criminal about it is that the rich get richer during the artificial boom and the poor get poorer during the crash. Of course, some rich lose during the crash but Uncle Scam is there to bail them out.
82 - troll
you gotta wonder how long interest rates can be kept so low and what will happen when they rise...will everything look like a malinvestment?
83 - troll
here's an interesting bit of liquidationist history w/ sympathetic model attached
84 - troll
and if the Hayek angle interests you...
85 - handyguy
Re: Obama and liberalism
When was the last time there was a genuinely liberal president? Not Clinton or Carter, certainly.
Liberals [meaning, people perceived by independent voters as liberals] can't win national elections in this country. I wish that weren't the case.
But even governing as a compromising centrist [while being falsely tagged as a radical socialist by many loudmouths, including some people on this site who still claim it's true], Obama accomplished several big pieces of legislation: stimulus, health care, financial reform, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
A GOP prez would immediately try to undo those last 3. That, along with judges and Supreme Court appointments, is more than enough reason to support the president's reelection.
86 - troll
...and if you enjoy De Long's approach to history here's a piece pertaining to your discussion of post WWII development
87 - roger nowosielski
@85
Let's disengage persons and personalities from concepts, Handy.
Apart from Mr. O's accomplishments, which subject I do not care to discuss, doesn't your argument strike you as very much the same kind of argument that's always being advanced by the proponents of "pure markets" or "pure capitalism"?
I needn't mention any names, for we all know who these people are.
88 - handyguy
A judiciary moved even further to the right by GOP presidential appointments could be disastrous. Citizens United was just a preview. Obama's two Supreme Court picks were also good deeds done.
I freely admit to being resigned to Realpolitik. No politician will satisfy me completely [even though, yes, I still do like Mr. O], and I gauge my expectations and choices accordingly.
If you see this as blind partisanship, I don't think you're reading it entirely accurately.