Occupy Pittsburgh to host permitted event (Sewickley, Wall: celebs, health, cities)

[mike02]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I love the postmodernism of the contemporary right wing. Confronted with all sorts of facts and logic that refute your boilerplate talking points? Well, what is "truth" anyway? Aren't "facts" and "logic" just social constructs? You're just trying to impose your hegemonic metanarrative on me! Language is oppression!

You just posted a link to prove that austerity measures caused the 1937 recession.

Recession of 1937

If you bothered to scroll down to the bottom, there are 3 distinct interpretations (keynesian, Austrian, Friedman) on what caused it. There is still a debate over what caused and prolonged the Great Depression as well as the 1937 recession.

Here, I'll post the exact words from BrianTH's source... the source he claims that "austerity and austerity only caused the recession of 1937." Read it before your very eyes!

Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn. Keynesian economists assign blame to cuts in federal spending and increases in taxes at the insistence of the US Treasury,[5] while monetarists, most notably Milton Friedman, assign blame to the Federal Reserve's tightening of the money supply in 1936 and 1937.[6] Johnathan Catalan, an Austrian school adherent, assigns blame to the relatively large expansion of the money supply from 1933 to 1937. He also pointed out that the money supply didn't tighten until after the recession began.[7]

But, of course the opposing viewpoint is just an example of "postmodernism of the contemporary right wing." You are very clear in your progressive viewpoints. Any opposition is pushed off as "cult-like," nonsense, and wacko. Next time you want to prove a point, why don't you hide the section that says INTERPRETATIONS on the bottom. Not too crafty, I see

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by mike02

There is a wide gap between the higher income earners and lower income earners. That is a fact. The correct policy choice is opened to interpretation based off that chart.

I would agree it often pays to keep the distinction between the descriptive (what is) and the normative (what ought to be) clear in one's mind.

It is one thing to say that policy conclusions (a normative issue) are "open to interpretation", although I wouldn't quite put it that way.

It is another thing entirely to say that economic history itself (a descriptive question) is "open to interpretation". For example, this claim is just not true:

The Panics of the 19th Century were small and quick

That's not a normative issue, that's a descriptive issue. And that description is simply wrong.

Another descriptive issue is what caused the Recession of 1937. If you want to argue my description of the causes of the Recession of 1937 is wrong, feel free (also be prepared to provide facts and logic to support your claim). But suggesting my description "may or may not be true based on interpretation" and that "It really comes down to how you interprete such events" is precisely the sort of postmodern clap-trap, aka relativism, that we suggested it was.

Some will find facts to prove laissez-faire policy caused the Great Depression. Others will find facts to prove price controlling and New Deal programs pushed us into and prolonged the Great Depression. You will find economists on both sides of the issue. It comes down to "my facts are better than yours."

And there you go again. Those aren't normative questions, those are descriptive questions. By confusing the two, you are trying to get away with a relativism that is inapplicable to descriptive questions.

Incidentally, the truth is more complicated than either "It was laissez-faire that did it" or "It was government intervention that did it." Both government inactivity and government activity contributed to making the Great Depression worse. A person interested in learning from history is going to continue down that path, but a person only interested in pushing a particular ideology is going to simplify the narrative, even if that makes the description provably inaccurate.

I think you have revealed to what use you are inclined to put history (not for learning, but for convenient, and often false, story-telling), and all this postmodern/relativism stuff is just a sophomoric defense of that approach.

I'd like to point out just because you learned something in school as fact, doesn't always mean it's correct especially with economics.

This is where you start sounding like a cultist. Yes, only you and your like-minded brothers understand the TRUE economic history of the United States. The rest of us ignorati are just mindlessly repeating what we learned in school.

Sheesh. I'm providing citations, and you are just making convenient assertions, and ignoring all the contrary evidence. So which of us exactly is displaying unthinking adherence to something we once learned?

I personally think gov't intervention and keynesian economics are not effective. People should respect that opinion instead of claiming it runs contrary to facts.

Sorry, but if your opinion is on a descriptive matter, and if it does in fact run contrary to facts, you aren't entitled to have that opinion "respected". In fact, I would suggest that respecting you as an autonomous person would require us to assume you are open to changing your descriptive opinions in light of contrary facts. And if you repeatedly disprove that assumption, we are not required to keep pretending your opinions are derived from anything but motivated reasoning:

http://www.skepdic.com/motivatedreasoning.html

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by mike02

If the Occupy Wall Street crowd studied the 1st Amendment, they would protest the existence of the FCC. It should be eliminated. Period.

I agree with you that the FCC does things which violate the First Amendment (and I could cite you the Supreme Court cases which clearly got this wrong and should be overturned). On the other hand, a variety of their regulations are absolutely necessary (for example, licensing wireless spectrum).

But But But But..... I'm in the minority opinion. Too many statists will rip this one apart in about 2 seconds

Yes, your attempt to simplify everything to the simplest and most convenient stories and prescriptions is what proves you are a true intellectual elite, unlike all us mindless "statists" who keep insisting these questions are much more complex than you are willing or able to grasp.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by mike02

Two UCLA economists wouldn't agree with you.

Anything Hoover did is by definition not part of the New Deal.

Again, though, I will agree that the Hoover Administration both did things that were unhelpful, and failed to do things which would have been helpful. I anticipate even this amount of nuance will be too much for you to admit.

[mike02]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Incidentally, the truth is more complicated than either "It was laissez-faire that did it" or "It was government intervention that did it...... a person only interested in pushing a particular ideology is going to simplify the narrative, even if that makes the description provably inaccurate.

motivated reasoning - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

And the truth on what caused the 1937 recession is more complex than claiming that austerity measures caused it, which is what you claimed. That is based on your ideology. I mentioned different interpretations to show to other readers on this forum that it's more complicated than that. It could be A, B, C or all of the above that lead to the 1937 recession. And a good way to study history is to look at each of the different interpretations and decide for yourself. I may not have been up to speed on my other posts but I've caught you red handed on this one. I took a comprehensive approach to the 1937 recession allowing others to see that history isn't as crystal clear as you want it to be. Not an "either/or" situation.

Then you go on to shoot down my credibility (catching you read handed for simplified assertions about the 1937 recession) with your normative issues v. descriptive issues nonsense. Yes, history is complex and not simple. I'm not writing a detailed analytical paper on this thread. Nor do I have the time to. But when I find pure nonsense claiming austerity caused this without looking at other possible causes or acknowledging it could be other causes, I will make note of that on here.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by mike02

If you bothered to scroll down to the bottom, there are 3 distinct interpretations (keynesian, Austrian, Friedman) on what caused it. There is still a debate over what caused and prolonged the Great Depression as well as the 1937 recession.

I am willing to credit some monetarist factors, which I think count within the broader heading of "austerity" (more on this in a moment).

I've read the "Austrian" article before, and it is nonsensical.

"Myth #1" depends on not understanding that everyone agrees that both spending and receipts are components of fiscal policy, and that contractionary austerity measures can and do take the form of both spending decreases and revenue increases.

"Myth #2" pokes some holes in Friedman's story, but it is a demonstrable fact that the monetary supply decreased (figure of M2):



That happened because of the Treasury's decision to sterilize gold purchases, a policy which was in effect between December 1936 and April 1938 (the right timing, of course).

The rest of the article pushes Austrian theory with, as usual, no direct evidence to support any of the causal claims and no particular explanation why factors starting years before and continuing month or years after happened to cause an event during that period of time (e.g., see the discussion about the dreaded "malinvestment" that always seems to produce its negative effects right when other contractionary events are occurring--such a coincidence!).

I'll post the exact words from BrianTH's source... the source he claims that "austerity and austerity only caused the recession of 1937."

You know, it is customary when using quoting someone that you actually be reporting something they wrote or said.

But, of course the opposing viewpoint is just an example of "postmodernism of the contemporary right wing."

No, the claim that which of these accounts is accurate is just a matter of interpretation is postmodernism/relativism. The Austrian account is nonsensical, demonstrably false with respect to the monetary supply issue, and otherwise relies on unverifiable non-explanations. That makes it wrong, and that isn't a matter of interpretation.

[Picksburg Stillers]

Hoover's policies definitely laid the groundwork for the New Deal. Things like the Federal Farm Board, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and hundreds of millions for public work projects like the Hoover Dam and the San Francisco Bay Bridge were all things started under Hoover that FDR would expand upon. One only needs to look at the increase in federal outlays under Hoover's administration from an FY 1929 budget of $3.1 billion to an FY 1933 budget of $4.6 billion to see the growth in government fiscal aid. Keep in mind that during this time there was an average 10% deflation every year, so in real terms the federal budget increased by nearly 100% during Hoover's four years. Even members of FDR's Brain Trust like Raymond Moley gave credit to Hoover. In a Newsweek article from 1948 titled "Reappraising Hoover", he said, "When we all burst into Washington..we found every essential idea enacted in the 100-day Congress in the Hoover administration itself. The essentials of the NRA, the PWA, the emergency relief setup were all there. Even the AAA was known to the Department of Agriculture. Only the TVA and the Securities Act was drawn from other sources. The RFC, probably the greatest recovery agency, was of course a Hoover measure, passed long before the inauguration." I don't know why he gets such a raw deal in the historical record. I suppose he was simply unfortunate with the bad timing of being president when the Depression started instead of when the policies he implemented began to bear fruit under FDR. I think he also gets a bad rep because of the things that his laissez-faire Treasury Secretary (who I should note was inherited from the previous administration) Andrew Mellon said. Of course, those were the ideas of Mellon, and not Hoover, who as I have noted had no issue with intervening in an attempt to help the economy, so I think this is unfair to lump them together.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by mike02

And the truth on what caused the 1937 recession is more complex than claiming that austerity measures caused it, which is what you claimed. That is based on your ideology.

No, that is based on understanding the history. That said, I am more than happy to credit the monetary contraction arising from gold sterilization, and I don't particularly care whether you call that an austerity measure or not.

And a good way to study history is to look at each of the different interpretations and decide for yourself.

Decide for yourself on what grounds? If all you do is choose whatever interpretation tells the story that you want to hear, that is not in fact a good way to learn from history.

I took a comprehensive approach to the 1937 recession

Did you?

But let's see how things evolve. I am willing to agree that gold sterilization played a role through shrinking the monetary base, and it may not have been fair for me to call that an austerity measure (I think of it as such, but others may disagree).

Now are you willing to acknowledge that the fiscal contraction also played a role?

Yes, history is complex and not simple. I'm not writing a detailed analytical paper on this thread. Nor do I have the time to.

The dog ate your homework, eh?

No one is forcing you to write anything in particular. If you don't know something, say the duration and magnitude of the 19th Century recessions, you don't have to write anything at all.

But of course you did feel compelled to say something: the facts told the wrong story, so you made up a better story.

[ditchdigger]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I was going with Brian's assertion that "Oh no! If consumers actually use this information to limit their charges, then wireless companies may...charge everyone a bit more!"...to which I counter that I'm against everyone chipping in to pay a bit more on their bill because yet another government regulation.

Fair enough. I should've gone back and checked exactly where you two started down that track before posting that.

I apologize.

[escilade18]

We should tell the protesters to go home since "prosperity is just around the corner" Redirect Notice