I finally finished reading the book, "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and his New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression." This is must reading for anyone who wants to know how the Great Depression began (without needing an economics degree), and what our nation did to attempt to correct it (and failed).
It was a nice departure from some of the heavy stuff I have been reading as of late. The book sums up its points well in the conclusion. First,:
"After Americans suffered through a catastrophic contraction for three years (1929-1933), FDR supported policies like the National Industrial Recovery Act that promoted further contraction. His executive orders helped enforce higher consumer prices when millions of Americans were unemployed and needed bargains. FDR approved the destruction of food when people were hungry. FDR signed into law higher taxes for everybody, so consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money with which to hire people - during the worst depression in American history."
As Jim Powell (the author) makes the point, FDR will be remembered less fondly as economists look back on the performance of his policies.
This, of course, does not discount the fact that he brought hope to millions of Americans and at least showed he was trying something. I fear that as time goes on, people will remember less of his intentions and more of his failed policies, particularly as Social Security goes bust.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Monday, January 02, 2006
Current Reading
I have missed a couple of my most recent reads, but I will get to those later. My current reading is by a gentleman from the D.C. based Cato Institute, my favorite libertarian think tank.
The title of the book is "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression."
I have been interested in reading this book for some time, as most of what the Democrats idealize is a return to the New Deal policies. It is and has been my opinion that the New Deal policies hurt America and that politicians and apologists have been revising history ever since.
While I am only about half-way through the book, there are some interesting facts to note: First, Roosevelt was innagurated in March of 1933. It is widely (correctly) assumed that the Great Depression began sometime in 1929. The first New Deal program was passed into law in late March 1933. The Great Depression ended sometime in the early 1940's, spurred by our entrance into World War II.
What is not widely agreed upon are the causes or the remedies of the Depression. Powell argues (and I agree) that the Depression ocurred largely because of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which led to a worldwide trade war, massively depressing consupmtion and investment. Roosevelt argued that is was greedy businessmen and stock speculators.
I would go so far as to say that if President Bush had attempted some of the remedies that Roosevelt did to allow our economy to recover, that Congress would have forgone impeachment hearings and went directly to lynching him.
Whatever your opinion of Roosevelt was (I believe that he was a great President), his tactics were certainly unconstitutional. Many of his (and his Brain Trust's) ideas came directly from facist Italy and Communist Russia. He was great, in my opinion, however, because of the spirit of the country, which he helped to bring back to life. Were it not for Roosevelt stopping the country's lethargic slide, this may very well be a different nation. If nothing else, he inspired hope, as have other great presidents before and after him.
The title of the book is "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression."
I have been interested in reading this book for some time, as most of what the Democrats idealize is a return to the New Deal policies. It is and has been my opinion that the New Deal policies hurt America and that politicians and apologists have been revising history ever since.
While I am only about half-way through the book, there are some interesting facts to note: First, Roosevelt was innagurated in March of 1933. It is widely (correctly) assumed that the Great Depression began sometime in 1929. The first New Deal program was passed into law in late March 1933. The Great Depression ended sometime in the early 1940's, spurred by our entrance into World War II.
What is not widely agreed upon are the causes or the remedies of the Depression. Powell argues (and I agree) that the Depression ocurred largely because of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which led to a worldwide trade war, massively depressing consupmtion and investment. Roosevelt argued that is was greedy businessmen and stock speculators.
I would go so far as to say that if President Bush had attempted some of the remedies that Roosevelt did to allow our economy to recover, that Congress would have forgone impeachment hearings and went directly to lynching him.
Whatever your opinion of Roosevelt was (I believe that he was a great President), his tactics were certainly unconstitutional. Many of his (and his Brain Trust's) ideas came directly from facist Italy and Communist Russia. He was great, in my opinion, however, because of the spirit of the country, which he helped to bring back to life. Were it not for Roosevelt stopping the country's lethargic slide, this may very well be a different nation. If nothing else, he inspired hope, as have other great presidents before and after him.
NSA Surveillance
Recently, there has been a half-hearted debate regarding the National Security Agency's monitoring of telephone calls between people located in America and known Al-Qaeda affiliates. This has caused quite a stir, and probably has damaged some of our intelligence capabilities.
It is very important, however, to understand what it is that we are talking about here. Further, it is my opinion that lawmakers should decide upon appropriate use of this power, which has been ocurring in this capacity for many years, at least preceding the current administration to the previous administration.
I believe it is fair to say that nearly all Americans would agree that we are "at war" with at least Al-Qaeda, and perhaps linked organizations within the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamic Jihad, Jemaat Islamiya, etc.). So from that reasoning, I believe most people would agree that it is a military duty to attempt to monitor the communications of Al-Qaeda, particularly if it involves communications to this country from nation-states, such as Afghanistan. Please note, this does not mean that all communications between the United States and Afghanistan are monitored. This means that all communications between the United States and a know Al-Qaeda operative or associate in Afghanistan are monitored. This would appear to me to be a military operation, and not a policing one.
I think it would be appropriate to make a corrolary here: if the United States found out during World War II that Adolph Hitler was making telephone calls into the United States, would surveillance of these calls require a court order? What if there was no evidence the person in American that Hitler was calling was doing anything wrong? Could they still monitor those calls? What if these calls provided no information about troop movements, but rather gave insight into Hitler's personality? Would this tapping have been appropriate, and would it have been necessary to get a court order?
This is the crux of our current debate. From what I understand of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), it is intended to be used as a police tool against domestic actors, not for the purposes of intelligence.
However, neither the media, the administration, nor the Democrats will allow this debate to occur. We are to believe that either this is an unacceptable intrusion on our privacy, that the President has unlimited power to do what he believes is necessary (the philospher king), or that this is an unprecedented violation of our liberties.
None of these could be furhter from the truth.
It is very important, however, to understand what it is that we are talking about here. Further, it is my opinion that lawmakers should decide upon appropriate use of this power, which has been ocurring in this capacity for many years, at least preceding the current administration to the previous administration.
I believe it is fair to say that nearly all Americans would agree that we are "at war" with at least Al-Qaeda, and perhaps linked organizations within the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamic Jihad, Jemaat Islamiya, etc.). So from that reasoning, I believe most people would agree that it is a military duty to attempt to monitor the communications of Al-Qaeda, particularly if it involves communications to this country from nation-states, such as Afghanistan. Please note, this does not mean that all communications between the United States and Afghanistan are monitored. This means that all communications between the United States and a know Al-Qaeda operative or associate in Afghanistan are monitored. This would appear to me to be a military operation, and not a policing one.
I think it would be appropriate to make a corrolary here: if the United States found out during World War II that Adolph Hitler was making telephone calls into the United States, would surveillance of these calls require a court order? What if there was no evidence the person in American that Hitler was calling was doing anything wrong? Could they still monitor those calls? What if these calls provided no information about troop movements, but rather gave insight into Hitler's personality? Would this tapping have been appropriate, and would it have been necessary to get a court order?
This is the crux of our current debate. From what I understand of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), it is intended to be used as a police tool against domestic actors, not for the purposes of intelligence.
However, neither the media, the administration, nor the Democrats will allow this debate to occur. We are to believe that either this is an unacceptable intrusion on our privacy, that the President has unlimited power to do what he believes is necessary (the philospher king), or that this is an unprecedented violation of our liberties.
None of these could be furhter from the truth.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
MTA Strike in New York City
First, I should impart some full disclosure. I am very anti-union. It is not that I am against the concept of collective bargaining. I do believe that workers should band together to protect their collective interests. However, I do not believe that those collective negotiations should include pay scales, retirement and medical benefits.
I am a big believer in merit. People should be rewarded in work, as in life, for working hard and being successful. However, unions have become something that spits on merit. Unions bargain for pay according to length of service, education, etc. These scales have nothing to do with how successful someone is in performing their tasks.
Secondly, unions have bargained to the ultimate detriment of their members in a globalizing economy. The unions, in addition to poor management in highly unionized indsutries, have served to create jobs which significantly overpay its employees. While it may be hard to say this with a straight face if I were some CEO making millions, it is true. Auto workers in Detroit have the opinion that a $60,000 per year job assembling autos, with more than $40,000 per year in retirement and medical benefits is middle class. I'm sorry folks, $60k per year in salary is not middle class. That is likely in the top 20% of incomes in the country.
So as it applies to the recent transportation strike in New York City, Americans, and even New Yorkers, are losing their sympathies for workers, who are overpaid for the value that they provide. I was sincerely hoping that Mayor Bloomberg would make more drastic threats to the union, such as firing the whole bunch.
Strikes such as those, or the recent teachers strike here in Oregon, in which a rural district outside of Portland saw teachers striking (and consequently students not in class) for 4 weeks, are simply causing the unions to distance themselves from the people and causing general animosity. Frankly, while this may certainly be painful in the short run, it will likely destroy the unions as we know them today. Perhaps that will be a good thing.
I am a big believer in merit. People should be rewarded in work, as in life, for working hard and being successful. However, unions have become something that spits on merit. Unions bargain for pay according to length of service, education, etc. These scales have nothing to do with how successful someone is in performing their tasks.
Secondly, unions have bargained to the ultimate detriment of their members in a globalizing economy. The unions, in addition to poor management in highly unionized indsutries, have served to create jobs which significantly overpay its employees. While it may be hard to say this with a straight face if I were some CEO making millions, it is true. Auto workers in Detroit have the opinion that a $60,000 per year job assembling autos, with more than $40,000 per year in retirement and medical benefits is middle class. I'm sorry folks, $60k per year in salary is not middle class. That is likely in the top 20% of incomes in the country.
So as it applies to the recent transportation strike in New York City, Americans, and even New Yorkers, are losing their sympathies for workers, who are overpaid for the value that they provide. I was sincerely hoping that Mayor Bloomberg would make more drastic threats to the union, such as firing the whole bunch.
Strikes such as those, or the recent teachers strike here in Oregon, in which a rural district outside of Portland saw teachers striking (and consequently students not in class) for 4 weeks, are simply causing the unions to distance themselves from the people and causing general animosity. Frankly, while this may certainly be painful in the short run, it will likely destroy the unions as we know them today. Perhaps that will be a good thing.
Germans release a terrorist for good behavior?
This week, Germany released a Lebanese terrorist, convicted of killing a US Navy diver in 1985.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. While eligible for parole in January (after 19 years in prison), he was released last week. The German government continues to deny that he has been released, however. At the time of his capture, Hamadi was attempting to enter Germany. The US vigorously attempted to have him extradicted, but to no avail.
The timing of this release is particularly interesting, as a German citizen, archaeologist Susanne Osthoff, was just released in Iraq. If this was a quid pro quo, Germany is continuing to negotiate with terrorists, as fellow EU'ers Italy have been doing since the beginning of the war.
It is hard to argue how this makes anyone safer.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. While eligible for parole in January (after 19 years in prison), he was released last week. The German government continues to deny that he has been released, however. At the time of his capture, Hamadi was attempting to enter Germany. The US vigorously attempted to have him extradicted, but to no avail.
The timing of this release is particularly interesting, as a German citizen, archaeologist Susanne Osthoff, was just released in Iraq. If this was a quid pro quo, Germany is continuing to negotiate with terrorists, as fellow EU'ers Italy have been doing since the beginning of the war.
It is hard to argue how this makes anyone safer.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Odds N' Ends
Sorry about the delay. I haven't been very motivated to make any postings recently. I have also been busy, but that is no real excuse.
I am on vacation for the next 9 days (through the day after Christmas), about which I am very excited. Hopefully I'll be able to relax and do some reading.
I am also excited because, in case someone who knows me that comes across this blog doesn't already know, my wife is pregnant with out first child. The due date is supposed to be in June. As it is still early (we are in pregnancy week 14), we are cautiously optimistic. But it is amazing to see and hear the heart beating.
I just found out the Washington Post's managing editor, Steve Coll, moved to the New Yorker magazine. Alright, maybe I won't let my subscription lapse. He is a great writer and working for the New Yorker will allow him to produce the 10,000 word articles he can't do very easily in the Post. I am sorry to see him leave my favorite paper, however.
Also finished another book. I had to stop my James Madison book midstream because I am lacking interest in the moment. I read Robert Baer's 2nd book called, "Sleeping With the Devil." It is about the dependant relationship the US has with Saudi Arabia because it must consume oil, and all the bad things that occur because of that relationship. It is excellent, and I highly recommend it.
Anyway, I should be writing a little more frequently now that I am on vacation, so I'll be back soon!
I am on vacation for the next 9 days (through the day after Christmas), about which I am very excited. Hopefully I'll be able to relax and do some reading.
I am also excited because, in case someone who knows me that comes across this blog doesn't already know, my wife is pregnant with out first child. The due date is supposed to be in June. As it is still early (we are in pregnancy week 14), we are cautiously optimistic. But it is amazing to see and hear the heart beating.
I just found out the Washington Post's managing editor, Steve Coll, moved to the New Yorker magazine. Alright, maybe I won't let my subscription lapse. He is a great writer and working for the New Yorker will allow him to produce the 10,000 word articles he can't do very easily in the Post. I am sorry to see him leave my favorite paper, however.
Also finished another book. I had to stop my James Madison book midstream because I am lacking interest in the moment. I read Robert Baer's 2nd book called, "Sleeping With the Devil." It is about the dependant relationship the US has with Saudi Arabia because it must consume oil, and all the bad things that occur because of that relationship. It is excellent, and I highly recommend it.
Anyway, I should be writing a little more frequently now that I am on vacation, so I'll be back soon!
Saturday, December 03, 2005
The Government is Taking Away More of Your Freedoms
Next week (the week of 12/5/2005) Congress will hold a hearing to determine the fairness of the BCS Championship. If that name sounds familiar, it should. The BCS Championship is the Bowl Championship Series to determine the national champion of college football.
As they did with steroids, Congress continues to rape the Constitution by interfering with parts of the country about which it has no legal right. And it is our fault as Americans for letting this happen. Whether or not you like the BCS is irrelevant. This is just the latest example of the eroding status of our freedoms in this country.
When you were a kid, and someone used to tell you, "You can't do that!," and you would respond, "It's a free country. I can do whatever I want!" That freedom is now in jeopardy. I am sure it is not much longer until Congress determines the fairness of dodgeball at school.
As they did with steroids, Congress continues to rape the Constitution by interfering with parts of the country about which it has no legal right. And it is our fault as Americans for letting this happen. Whether or not you like the BCS is irrelevant. This is just the latest example of the eroding status of our freedoms in this country.
When you were a kid, and someone used to tell you, "You can't do that!," and you would respond, "It's a free country. I can do whatever I want!" That freedom is now in jeopardy. I am sure it is not much longer until Congress determines the fairness of dodgeball at school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
