For as long as I can remember I've been taught that FDR's New Deal and WW2 ended the Depression. Or the New Deal saved American and WW2 ended the Depression. Or something like that. When you're lying it's hard to tell a consistent story.

More recently, there's been a lot published on how FDR took his inherited Depression and turned it into the Great Depression.

But what ended FDR's Great Depression? I keep hearing that America's mass production of war material shocked us into prosperity. Arthur Herman ain't buying it. Herman isn't the first person to make this case - but I like the clarity of his arguments and supporting stats.

Before I start tantalizing you with choice excerpts (RTWT) I want to emphasize a point Herman makes. FDR didn't bring down unemployment with New Deal measures. Unemployment stayed sky high until millions of working age men were drafted into the Army and Navy.

As Washington waits for President Obama’s plan on how to revive the economy and pull us out of our 9 percent unemployment rut, a growing chorus on the left is calling for us to go to war - or at least the economic equivalent of war.

... Krugman, who argues that the only thing that will save the economy now is "a burst of deficit-financed government spending" on a scale like that launched in World War Two. In fact, "if we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive [military] build-up," he said on a recent television show, "this slump would be over in 18 months."

... he’s a fan of big deficits as a form of economic stimulus. During World War Two, that involved government borrowing to the tune of $30 trillion in today’s dollars - a sum that makes Obama’s 2009 $800 billion stimulus look like pocket change. But since that’s what turned around the economy in World War Two, wiped out 9 percent unemployment, and finally ended the Great Depression, goes the argument, then that’s the scale of spending that is required now.

It's fair to wonder who we would borrow $30 trillion from. Krugman's martians?

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:26 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 1368 words, total size 9 kb.

This is a classic B-movie starring Richard Carlson. Quick, which actor is Richard Carlson; which is Kevin McCarthy, and which is Hugh Marlowe?

Yes, back in the days when all B-movie actors appeared to be related. The Magnetic Monster was a prophetic movie in that it dramatized what will happen one day when the Large Hadron Collider at CERN finally creates a black hole.

The scenes of the underground magneto-dynamo "Delta-tron" are stock footage taken from the German science fiction thriller Gold (1934). Some trivia from Wikipedia:

The German film GOLD was banned in the USA due to the belief that it depicted a functional nuclear reactor Â… and the Nazis had it. It was feared that this would convince Americans that it was impossible to oppose Hitler due to the Third Reich's clear scientific advantage over us. This was clearly forgotten since most of the footage of the "nuclear reactor" was incorporated into MAGNETIC MONSTER and it was released without any problem.

YouTube movie below the fold in five parts. And remember, if it weren't for B-movies, there would be no A-movies. Think about it. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 01:16 PM | Comments (177)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

First they came for the push-up bras, and I didn't speak out...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:50 AM | Comments (357)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been studying economics for years (as a hobby; how sad is that?), and one thing that's become very clear to me is that the study of economics alone is very unsatisfying. (They don't call it "the dismal science" for nothing.) Economics often seems to be little more than a sociological or cultural mirror: you see what you want to see. I think that's why society has been so badly served in general by economic "experts" - it tends to draw people who look for pattern and regularity in a system that is, above all else, a chaotic series of interactions between often-irrational human beings.

After you've read enough books about "pure" economics, you can't help but notice that no system of economics ever works in reality as it does in theory, and that economics is simply one thread in a larger weave of society and culture. A study of economics inevitably leads one to larger questions of philosophy, governance, and religion. How could it be otherwise? Economics is just...people doing what people do. And a large part of what we do takes place in the region of the mind - our preferences, dislikes, and impulses (rational or not) heavily influence our economic decisions.

The first book I ever read that tried to deal with economics in a philosophical context was F. A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Hayek, like his forebears Hume, Burke, Locke, and Mill, tries to locate economics in a philosophical model, and to explain how the free-market capitalist system is most disposed to protecting the Western conception of individual liberty and natural rights. Even when the  book was being written (in the early to mid 1950's), Hayek could see the trend of government away from the "Classic Liberal" position and towards the statist, interventionist, regulatory monster we have now. His intent was to show how this trend not only produced economic harm, but actually undermined the basic philosophy of America's founding. The book struggles with some mighty questions, and doesn't provide fully satisfactory answers - but then, that's the point. Hayek admits in his preface that he is an economist at heart, and is trying to address questions - legal, moral, ethical, political - that he is not fully trained to address. Yet he does a very credible job in this book, I think.

The book is well worth reading, even if you're not generally a fan of philosophy or economics texts. If nothing else, it's a reminder that the questions that seem to press so hard today have in fact been weighing on the minds of people for a long while now. Whenever I hear someone say, "This time it's different", I want to point them to this book. The specific circumstances may be different, yes, but the inexorable movement towards statism and overbearing government has been going on for a long time now.

What's everyone else reading?

Posted by: Monty at 05:16 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Just saw video of this on the morning news, but I couldn't find it to link.

First Motocross, Now His Shotgun: Jon Huntsman Shows a Moderate Can Be Macho

CONCORD, N.H.—Jon Huntsman, who has made much of the motorcycles he owns, bragged about his shotgun Saturday as he wooed gunowners in a state where the former Utah governor is counting on a breakout performance to vault him into the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

“I’ve been shooting guns since I was, I guess, 6, when I started with a BB gun, and then a .22 when I was 12, which I still have, by the way. And then I have a shotgun, a 12-gauge shotgun,” Huntsman told reporters outside Concord’s Everett Ice Arena, where more than 50 gun vendors were gathered for a show and sale.

No report on whether he asked if he could get him a huntin' license there.

Update: Underwhelmed by Huntsman - Good piece, especially in regards to asshat campaign consultants John Weaver and Mark McKinnon.

Posted by: andy at 03:54 AM | Comments (200)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Evenin' morons and 'ettes! I'm back for another Saturday round of debauchery, chit chat and what not. So git yer drink and wear the appropriate level of clothing, the ONT has begun!

TBM reminded me today that today was International Bacon Day so make sure you've had your daily allotment as required for all members of the Bacon Religion.

This story is a little old (last year) but I don't remember hearing about it. Bacon Bikini Contest Raised Cash For Fake Charity.

A California restaurant owner held a beauty contest to raise funds for a diabetes charity in his daughterÂ’s name. But the breasts werenÂ’t the only things that were fake in this competition. The charity, itself, didnÂ’t exist.

Steve Lightfoot held the first ever Bacon Bikini Contest at his cafe, Lightfoot’s California Cuisine in Roseville, Calif. on Oct. 22. The event, had, as you might expect, women parading around in bikinis made of bacon – ala Lady Gaga.

Raffle tickets were sold at the event, with the proceeds supposedly going to the Jordan Lightfoot Diabetes Foundation. Jordan Lightfoot, SteveÂ’s 19-year-old daughter, does indeed have diabetes, but unbeknownst to her, her father never registered the charity.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:48 PM | Comments (684)
Post contains 768 words, total size 8 kb.

It just didn't seem to work in 1994. They had to wait seven years for the world's technology to catch up with the show's pacing.

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (174)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

The media reported it as a verified fact that it was "unprecedented" that any Speaker had refused a President's request for a joint session.

Well, Tip O'Neill refused Reagan's request to appear before the House. Not a joint session, but just the House; Tip O'Neill said no.

Tip O'Neill

He hated blacks.

Posted by: Ace at 03:16 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Promising she was ready to have a "adult conversation" about the specifics of what needed to be done to right America, Palin set a marker for herself:

"It requires deeds not words, it's not enough for politicians to throw around some vague generalities..."

And then went on to speak in... vague generalities. (Note: All quotes were taken directly as she spoke, and might not be completely word-for-word accurate.)

Her five point plan could have been taken from just about any candidates' Standard Stump Speech, and I include Jon Huntsman when I say "any candidate."

Here are some of the detailed, specific non-vague-generalities highlights:

So far it's a "bona fide workin' man's plan" which is all about "empowerment."

"The way forward is no more politics as usual."

"All power not specifically delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution is reserved for the states, or we the people... so let's enforce the 10th amendment."

"We must repeal obamacare."

"Get the government out of the way, let the private sector breathe and expand..."

"No more runaway debt, we must priorize and cut. Cancel unused stimulus funds."

"The reality is we will have entitlement reform, either we do it ourselves or the world capital markets will."

Now, this advocacy for entitlement reform is semi-gutsy, but it is obviously not "detailed." And in fact most candidates talk of "reforming" entitlements. Few are very specific.

"We have the highest federal corporate tax rates in the world, do you know it's higher than China?"

Okay, I do not believe a single candidate does not advocate lowering the corporate tax rate. Including Huntsman.

She wants to cut it down to zero, which is at least a detail, and is at least not a gimme.

To pay for this, she wants to eliminate "loopholes and bailouts and corporate cronyism."

Remember, she's going to give you an "adult conversation," rich in detail, unlike other poltiicians, who speak in "vague generalities."

This speech was said to be two things, and hinted to a third.

First, it was supposed to be a "major announcement." If there was a major announcement here, I missed it entirely.

Second, it was supposed to be a "full-throated defense of the Tea Party." It wasn't. It was platitudes and bromides sprinkled with flattering the crowd.

What would a "full-throated (and "major") defense of the Tea Party" sound like? Well, for one, I'd think it should be persuasive to non-Tea Partiers. For another, I think it would be thoughtful, rather than off-the-cuff standard flatteries. For a third, I think it should be novel or new.

I could imagine a good speech about the Tea Party. I could imagine a speech going all the way back to the Town Halls during and after the Revolutionary War, when citizens were actually engaged in what their government and their country would be. I could imagine a speech detailing the patriotic conscientiousness of making sure that what was won by blood should not be lost by disregard.

And I could imagine such a speech noting that for decades, American citizens had largely abandoned this commitment to engagement with their own political fates, and a Media-Government Elite filled the vacuum, and over time, became less and less connected with the citizens they were supposedly serving.

And I could imagine a speech then noting that this Elite, having gotten cozy deciding the fate of the nation, reacts hysterically and angrily when citizens decide they want to take back their God-given right to decide the course of human events for themselves, viciously attacking Americans who had the audacity to say "We're taking our responsibilities as citizens seriously again, after too long leaving it them to you, those who craved power and assumed it and now cry like stuck animals when we attempt to take back what was always ours."

Maybe you don't think that's good. Maybe that strikes you as pedestrian and done to death.

But if you're going to claim a "full throated defense of the Tea Party," shouldn't there be something beyond the typical praise of the "workin' man" and the standard-issue statements that we're the ones who actually produce wealth?

That stuff is true. But it's unremarkable. Certainly it fails to live up to the advance billing.

Third, what was implied was that Palin would make an announcement about her candidacy. She hinted about this "See you on September 3rd!," a campaign-like commercial promised.

And she never said publicly, "Although I am giving a policy speech, I will not be making any kind of declaration on September 3rd." Such a statement was leaked by "sources close to the governor," but is there something "unconservative" about simply making one's plans known?

So that other people don't waste their time?

Instead, after the encouragement of interest, and the cultivation of speculation about what that "major announcement" might be, it was a very standard-issue and not-particularly-important or novel stump speech.

Some might find this sort of coyness and games-playing "brilliant" or the like. I don't.

Some may claim she "played a trick on the media." Yes, the media. And everyone else too.

David Letterman used to make a point of wasting "network time" on dumb stuff. The in-joke was "Can you believe we are doing a network broadcast and yet we're just showing videos of squirrels?"

I found that funny, for a time. Until I realized he wasn't just wasting the network's time with the squirrel videos; he was wasting my time, too. I stopped considering myself one of the people "inside the joke," laughing at NBC, and started considering myself one of the people being punked with time-wasting exercises.

It also occurred to me that as long as people like me were tuning in for the squirrel videos, the NBC corporate suits were happy. They didn't care if Letterman was wasting the audience's time. They sold commercial space either way.

So who was actually getting his chain yanked there? The media was getting paid, which is all they care about.

Palin got lots of attention for a speech that turned out to be extremely bullet-point and frankly trivial.

I don't consider this an achievement. I just consider it manipulative, and I don't just laugh it off as playing a prank on the stupid media.

A lot of people traveled a very long way and sat out in the rain for something that was suggested just might be The Big Announcement. A lot of people watched on TV.

And what they saw was a no-brainer stump speech.

Who's being pranked here? The media in attendance were all paid to be there. Their travel arrangements were comped. They'll get back their vacation day. And it was either covering this or covering Jon Huntsman.

What about everyone else?

Posted by: Ace at 11:27 AM | Comments (1398)
Post contains 1130 words, total size 7 kb.

Details stolen from Hot Air, it starts at 12:30 Eastern and goes for three hours. Well, not her speech, but the event. Corrected: On CSPAN, the chyron says 12:30, not 12, as I first wrote. Re-Corrected: Actually I don't know where CSPAN got its 12:30 figure. It is currently streaming the event, which has begun.

Streamed on CSPAN, and also just played on TV on CSPAN.

Latest (leaked) word is that she won't be announcing, but instead will defend the Tea Party and attack Barack Obama, and will talk about "crony capitalism" and "compromised" political leaders, which is being taken as an attack on Rick Perry.

Of course she could just be trying to surprise everyone.

Posted by: Ace at 09:22 AM | Comments (812)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.