Very nice letter. I think you may be bitten a little on the Keynes remark, however. Keynes may not have published his seminal work until '36, but he was certainly developing those ideas during '33.
Keynes seems to have a pretty strong connection with at least one member of FDR’s brain trust: Felix Frankfurter. Keynes also commented publicly on FDR’s policies in various published letters. Rexford Tugwell’s policies were also very pro-public sector intervention.
I think an adequate argument could be made that ‘Keynsian advisors’ describing individuals with economic views similar to Keynes can predate publication of ‘The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.’ If that point is granted, it certainly seems that FDR had such advisors.
speaking of which, there was an “Impeach Obama” dude outside of Costco today with a poster showing Obama with the cheesiest and not very lifelike Hitler mustache. HOpe he froze his ass off.
Probably the same guy with his “Impeach Obama” petition who accosted me outside the Post Office in Chehalis (Wa.) this past summer.
I pulled up in my truck with the leftover Obama stickers from '08 - I know he saw them - and he asked me if I wanted to sign his petition to impeach Obama because he wasn’t born in this country.
I mumbled something about, “yes, he was” and went on into the Post Office. When I came back out, he was gone.
I really, really wanted to say more than I did but I didn’t dare get started.
You are the best in town, if for no reason other than this:
[QUOTE=You]
He begins by stating that FDR had ‘Keynesian economic advisors.’ I find this, at best, amusing as Roosevelt began his presidency, and therefore his economic program, in 1933 and Keynes first presented his theory in “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” in 1936. We are left to believe that either FDR was either advised by a band of time-traveling economists or Ritter’s grasp on Keynesian economics and history is less than ideal.
[/QUOTE]
Cite that there were no time-traveling economists, smart guy? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Just when I lose faith in newspapers (and the media in general) to present articles that are well-written, well-thought out and, above all, factual, you come along and restore my faith in journalism.
I’ll put in a good word for you to the Pulitzer committee.
Very nice. I am, however, going to pick on two items:
Firstly, ‘Further, it is widely held that other of Harding’s economic policies…’ might have been better if you had given some names of those who hold such a view - as you do elsewhere. Otherwise it can be easily dismissed.
Secondly, hasn’t Greenspan been significantly discredited following the Credit Crunch? So an appeal to his authority might be injudicious.
It’s not the best I’ve written. Those two “either”'s in the second paragraph are cringe-inducing.
I don’t think Greenspan has been discredited by the current troubles. At least I haven’t heard a groundswell about it. If anything Bernanke’s been on the firing line due to it.
Honestly, this is tons of fun. I’ll prepare a response, of course, but I thought you fine people might enjoy it. I certainly don’t think he liked my snarky tone last time. But the snark is part of the fun.
I knew I’d take some heat on the ‘Time traveling economists’ bit. Clearly at least Frankfurter knew and respected Keynes during Roosevelt’s term (as was pointed out in the last thread). Still, I thought the point was worth making.
I do wonder about his ignoring my pointing out that, since regulation was in place, economic growth has remained steadily up (with two exceptions) instead of the wildly up-and-down of the times prior to that.
Snark may increase the fun but it decreases the effectiveness. I’ve learned this the hard way as everything I wrote used to be filled with jabs at the other guy. Over time I’ve come to realize that this makes it less likely that any reader will actually completely read, contemplate, and be influenced by what I write. (Though I’m still not perfect on it.)
The way it works is simply that if a reader approaches a letter/column/essay/article/book that they’re disinclined to agree with, any insult or sarcastic jab gives the reader an excuse to dislike the writers. The reader says to himself “Aha! This guy’s using insults because he doesn’t have any facts.” It may not be true, but it gives the reader a psychological defense mechanism by which to reject what he’s reading. Better to be like Joe Friday: Just The Facts.
Other than that, though, it’s clear that you are a lot smarter than your opponent in these debates.
Here’s the main problem with trying to pin the New Deal as Keynesian in the first place. The New Deal was first and foremost a jobs program. The Government is very bad at outright creating jobs. What the Government is great at is buying shit. That’s what Keynes was on about, and that’s why WW2 drove a stake though the heart of the Depression. Rather than trying to employ the millions who were out of work, the government suddenly started buying airplanes, tanks, jeeps, guns, bullets, tires, food (lots and lots of food), clothes, shoes, and so forth. The increased demand put pressure on the companies who provided the goods and services needed, and they, in turn, hired more workers.
The New Deal was not Keynesian. The New Deal also did not end the depression. What the New Deal did do was prevent things from getting so bad that the people didn’t revolt a la Russia or Germany.
This has been a pretty fun series to follow. Hopefully they’ll keep printing the letters as you continue the debate. I agree with one of your opponent’s sentiments - it’s pretty cool that you are having the discussion through letters to the editor. The community aspect of newspapers is one that needs to be preserved as they die/transition to electronic format.
It would be interesting to study the performance of different economies prior to and following the creation of a central banking system. There’s probably some info out there.
Obama = Hitler? Really? I don’t think so. Did the Nazis regularly complain that The Leader was caving in to the Social Democrats? The English? The Communists? No. Hitler was not known for his spirit of bipartisanship and selling out his own party members.
That’s a pretty damn weak letter. Two minor points stretched out the four paragraphs, and I’m not sure if either is really relevant to his original point.
But I’m a nitpicker by nature. I noticed:
I’m not sure exactly what he’s trying to say here. Did the Fed cause the Great Depression, or hamper the recovery, or what? Does misunderstanding of the cause mean you can’t participate in the recovery? Wikipedia lists Greenspan as a Republican, appointed by Reagan, strange credentials for a liberal. Does he think that Greenspan was blinded because he was duty-bound to defend the actions of his agency when he was three years old? (And wasn’t the original column about the crash of 1920?)
What works for families does not necessarily work best for governments.
I’m just really astonished by this. When he ran the initial Obama=Hitler piece several months ago he got lambasted in the letters column by many people and he responded. But I didn’t truly think he’d respond to me this time.
And this time it’s my turn. As those following this discussion may remember we have a local Tea Party columnist for The Marietta Times named Kevin Ritter. Kevin and his wife (she’s an attorney) head the local Tea Party movement here in my town. Kevin is defining himself as the intellectual center of that group and The Times has given him a column. I have taken it upon myself to use the SDMB approach to responding to his columns and he’s taken the bait of responding to my responses. It’s fun and a good way to keep my name out there in the public discourse.
Anyway, here’s the latest. It took them about 3 weeks to run it but I’m happy they did, finally.