Walstreet Reform - New financial rules might not prevent next crisis

[Oddball]

Seriously, I cannot believe I'm having this conversation with you guys. Like having me outnumbered and repeating the lie over and over you'll somehow become right. I guess bringing up... Oh I don't know, every history textbook I've ever read... Wouldn't do any good, right?

Well, we now know how you learned what you "know", that just ain't so.

 

[Cuyo]

It's not our fault if you've been reading the wrong books.

Just sayin'.

Than could you direct me to a legitimate history textbook that espouses this kabookie fringe theory you subscribe to?

 

[Oddball]

It certainly didn't help.

Along with Hoover's monetary voodoo and meddling Smoot-Hawley merely made things worse....Hell, he himself even obliquely admitted as much.

Herbert Hoover's Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

Rothbard? You castigate others for citing Paul Krugman and you post perhaps the most dogmatically ideological economist ever?

What was Hoover's monetary voodoo?

At least Rothbard's work is footnoted and sourced....How often does ferret face Krugman do that?

 

[Toro]

It certainly didn't help.

Along with Hoover's monetary voodoo and meddling Smoot-Hawley merely made things worse....Hell, he himself even obliquely admitted as much.

Herbert Hoover's Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

Rothbard? You castigate others for citing Paul Krugman and you post perhaps the most dogmatically ideological economist ever?

What was Hoover's monetary voodoo?

At least Rothbard's work is footnoted and sourced....How often does ferret face Krugman do that?

I'm not saying that Rothbard is always wrong. I'm saying he is a dogmatic ideologue. If you apply the standard of dismissing Krugman for being ideologically biased, why wouldn't you do the same for Rothbard, who is far, far more dogmatic than Krugman? At least Krugman bucks the party line, arguing in favor of free trade, something many liberals do not. I'm not sure what Rothbard has written that deviates from the strict libertarianism he is known for. But perhaps he has, and I'd appreciate it if you could point me to it. As for "footnoted and sourced," Krugman won a Nobel Prize and the Bates Medal for his empirical econometric research.

What was Hoover's monetary voodoo? Or where you referring to the Fed?

 

[Cuyo]

It's not our fault if you've been reading the wrong books.

Just sayin'.

Than could you direct me to a legitimate history textbook that espouses this kabookie fringe theory you subscribe to?

Of course you can't. This belongs over in conspiracy land.

 

[Rinata]

Seriously, I cannot believe I'm having this conversation with you guys. Like having me outnumbered and repeating the lie over and over you'll somehow become right. I guess bringing up... Oh I don't know, every history textbook I've ever read... Wouldn't do any good, right?

You could show them any history book and if they didn't like the content, they would say it's not true. That's what right wing nut buckets do. They are just like their heroes; O'Reilly, Beck, Palin, and Limbaugh. They just lie and ignore the truth. They don't think they need to know anything. If it leans to the right, it's good. And that's that. They are so pitiful.

 

[boedicca]

It's not our fault if you've been reading the wrong books.

Just sayin'.

Than could you direct me to a legitimate history textbook that espouses this kabookie fringe theory you subscribe to?

Here you go:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260476/fourmilabwwwfour]Amazon.com: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History…[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

Rothbard? You castigate others for citing Paul Krugman and you post perhaps the most dogmatically ideological economist ever?

What was Hoover's monetary voodoo?

At least Rothbard's work is footnoted and sourced....How often does ferret face Krugman do that?

I'm not saying that Rothbard is always wrong. I'm saying he is a dogmatic ideologue. If you apply the standard of dismissing Krugman for being ideologically biased, why wouldn't you do the same for Rothbard, who is far, far more dogmatic than Krugman? At least Krugman bucks the party line, arguing in favor of free trade, something many liberals do not. I'm not sure what Rothbard has written that deviates from the strict libertarianism he is known for. But perhaps he has, and I'd appreciate it if you could point me to it. As for "footnoted and sourced," Krugman won a Nobel Prize and the Bates Medal for his empirical econometric research.

What was Hoover's monetary voodoo? Or where you referring to the Fed?

The Fed.

Insofar as the Rothbard piece is concerned, I wouldn't have cited it were it not extensively sourced....If Krugman ever posted something on economics first and politics secondarily (an extreme rarity), with at least halfway credible sourcing, I might read it with at least a shade of credulity....But he doesn't so I don't.

 

[Toro]

The Fed.

Insofar as the Rothbard piece is concerned, I wouldn't have cited it were it not extensively sourced....If Krugman ever posted something on economics first and politics secondarily (an extreme rarity), with at least halfway credible sourcing, I might read it with at least a shade of credulity....But he doesn't so I don't.

That's because what you read from his public writings as a commentator - "All Republican stuff is bad" - is just that, opinionated commentary. I take that about as seriously as I do any commentator - not very.

But as a scholar, he is extremely well-respected, and some of the work he has done in the economics of geography is truly ground-breaking stuff.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not our fault if you've been reading the wrong books.

Just sayin'.

Than could you direct me to a legitimate history textbook that espouses this kabookie fringe theory you subscribe to?

It's hardly fringe. I'd suggest James Grant's History of Banking in the U.S. where he shows the exact same thing. Almost everything Hoover did--infrastructure spending etc--is being paralleled today by Obama. Even the little upturn we've had had precedents in the 1930s.