New at Reason
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) both have new books out. But while Paul's has raced to the top of the charts, Hagel's is already long forgotten. Associate Editor David Weigel explains why.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Much as I am on board with Paul's message, I don't see his book staying high on the charts for long. He has a niche following. When Tool comes out with a new album, they're number one - for a week or two. Same kinda deal.
bob | May 14, 2008, 12:37pm | #
reason sucksFluffy | May 14, 2008, 12:42pm | #
The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era.The fiat money era, or the Federal Reserve era?
Because if we're talking the Federal Reserve era, the Great Depression is on the list.
Elemenope | May 14, 2008, 12:43pm | #
Nietzsche only peaked after he died. When he was alive he could barely get a publisher for Zarathustra and the printing runs were miserably small. By WWI, Zarathustra was probably the most widely read text written in German.Somewhat similarly, a book full of radical "kooky" ideas may just make a momentary blip on the charts and then fade, but it does not necessarily follow that the impact of the work will fade with it. It all depends upon whether subsequent events make RP's message more or less salient. If we do have a Weimar-style collapse in a decade, expect him to be "rediscovered" and quoted ad nauseam.
Warren | May 14, 2008, 12:51pm | #
The Revolution is as colorblind and class-blind as any Sesame Street script.Nice Dave. Best turn of phrase I've read this year!
♪ | May 14, 2008, 1:13pm | #
The 19th century had fractional reserve banking and various government bailouts and protections as moral hazards.ChanceH | May 14, 2008, 1:13pm | #
The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era. They provided much steadier footing for radical movements.Which one of the 19th century panics was worse than the Great Depression?
TallDave | May 14, 2008, 1:25pm | #
Which one of the 19th century panics was worse than the Great Depression?Depends how you look at it. In absolute terms of equity loss, none of them -- but in absolute terms the 1987 stock market crash was the worst panic of all time. In terms of people's living standards, the 19th century failures were all worse, because people were poorer in the 19th century and a smaller relative drop meant disproportionally more misery, perhaps even starvation.
By the 1920s, we were starting to realize the benefits of a liberalized world trade system. The collapse of that system took us back a bit, but most people lived better than pre-1900.
robc | May 14, 2008, 1:33pm | #
So we end up with factors unrelated to fiat money (globalization and generally higher standard of living) that prevent crashes from hurting us as bad as they did in the 19th century.Makes sense to me. Fact is, crashed pre 1900 were less bad, they just hurt worse for other reasons.
Warren | May 14, 2008, 1:38pm | #
In terms of people's living standards, the 19th century failures were all worse, because people were poorer in the 19th century and a smaller relative drop meant disproportionally more misery, perhaps even starvation.Perhaps, but there was no 19th century deliberate reformation of the federal government into an organized crime syndicate like the New Deal.
Rick Barton | May 14, 2008, 1:47pm | #
TallDave:Chuck who?
Cmon. Sen Hagel R-Neb, a fiscal conservative, was one of the first senators to challenge the claims of necessity and wisdom of attacking Iraq. And his predictions of the problems that would accompany the tragedy have come to fruition in abundance.
jj | May 14, 2008, 1:49pm | #
If Weigel does not believe in the liberalization of personal economic choice and currencies, what does he believe in? I can't see much of a libertarian alternative in his criticisms.Over all a favorable piece.
Mad Max | May 14, 2008, 1:59pm | #
"Nietzsche only peaked after he died."Which inspires me to share this minor contribution to the fine arts:
"Freddie Nietzsche is Dead"
(to the tune of "Freddie's Dead," by Fishbone)
Say Freddie's dead,
That's what I said
Whatever may be the case with God
Freddie Nietzsche lies beneath the sod
It's hard to understand
The stuff that was written by this man
But I'm sure all would agree
He has great posthumous popularity
Freddie's dead,
That's what I said
Everybody's misused him
Ripped him off and abused him
Doing the best he can
Looking for the Overman
That really blows, but that's how it goes
Freddie's in the boneyard now
And if you want to be a famous writer
Just remember
Write like Fred.
Trashy novels and cookbooks may sell the best
But sometimes I must confess
For books with bigger topics I dream
Topics like - Reality, What Does it Mean?
Now Freddie's back
That's what I sprach
You can keep your high-tech gadgetry
Just give me The Birth of Tragedy
Let me read Human, All Too Human
Not Peggy Noonan
(Where's your whip when you really need it?)
You can pick flowers, give *me* the Will to Power
He died delirious, and it make furious
Freddie's dead
Don't be misled, just think of Fred
Don't be misled, just think of Fred
Mick | May 14, 2008, 2:07pm | #
There was ONE AND ONLY ONE TIME THERE WAS A REAL GOLD STANDARD.This was 1870-1913.
This was the ONE and ONLY time a free, classical gold standard was allowed for America.
This was also known as the "guilded age", the greatest economic expansion in American history where we rocketed past Old Europe and became the dominant industrial power.
This time also saw deflation, yes, believe it, the economy expanded and things got cheaper at the same time!
Really, this is why Reason sucks sometimes. You guys are pussy libertarians. You stand hard on the easy stuff like drugs and taxes, but you puss out over hardcore stuff like monetary policy.
I mean, omg, even Cato came out in support of the gold standard, you can't be more pussy than Cato?
Mick | May 14, 2008, 2:11pm | #
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9181Here is said article about pussyness of reason writers...
R C Dean | May 14, 2008, 2:24pm | #
The 19th century had fractional reserve bankingAnytime you have fractional reserve banking, you have "fiat money," because you have more money than can be redeemed for metal.
Even a gold standard has 'fiat money' in circulation if it also has fractional reserve banking.
The existence of a god standard need not preclude currency inflation, particularly if there is 'official' currency. After all, the Continental was badly devalued. Of course, the pro tem government had little collateral to back up its currency. You might say the colonists were 'tricked' into financing the revolutionary army.
Sam Grove | May 14, 2008, 2:45pm | #
Even Friedman eventually gave up on responsible management of the money by policrats."Most of my own work dealing with public policy has had the same character of proceeding as if I were addressing governmental officials selflessly dedicated to the public interest. I have attempted to persuade the Federal Reserve System that it was doing the wrong thing and it ought to adopt a different policy. This time was ill-spent because the public-interest characterization of government is basically flawed.... We do not regard a businessman as selflessly devoted to the public interest. We think of a businessman as in business to improve his own welfare, to serve his own interest.... Why should we regard government officials differently? They too aim to serve their own interest, and in government as in business we must try to set up institutions under which individuals who intend only their own gain are led by an invisible hand to serve the public interest. The Federal Reserve System puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people and it is so constructed that it has been in their self-interest to pursue a policy which, I believe, has been very harmful for the public rather than helpful.... Clearly, it was not in the self-interest of the Federal Reserve hierarchy to follow the hypothetical policy [of a monetary rule]. It was therefore a waste of time to try to persuade them to do so."
Whole article.
Pax Hammericana | May 14, 2008, 2:46pm | #
Sesame Street was neither color- nor class-blind. The early episodes were designed for the ghettos and would be racially offensive by today's general standards.Nice article, though.
ChanceH | May 14, 2008, 3:14pm | #
Mr Weigel,Overall, a nice article. But:
As a libertarian, why do you believe that an appointed, unaccountable
board of benevolent experts should determine the short-term rental
rate for money, instead of the free market, via the price mechanism?
Until you can answer that question, I don't really expect you are
going to put forth a very convincing critique of Mr Paul's proposals
in this arena.
Esher Fern Gamble | May 14, 2008, 3:15pm | #
Mick,The only reason I come to reason.com anymore is to read comments like yours that get to the heart of the matter and expose these charlatans as the unprincipled dope-smokers they are. Bravo.
CosmotarianUnderlord | May 14, 2008, 3:22pm | #
You might say the colonists were 'tricked' into financing the revolutionary army.You are obviously a communist. There is no connection at all between monetary policy and fighting wars. They have NOTHING to do with each other at all. It is perfectly logical to be against the war (although that would make you racist traitor all by itself), and for fiat money.
Anybody who disagrees is either a racist like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, or communist. I haven't seen you use any racial slurs, so you must be a communist.
Spencer | May 14, 2008, 3:31pm | #
Reason's benefactor, billionaire David Koch, HATES the idea of sound money, so the review was fairly good considering the editorial control being exerted by Reason's sugar daddy (who pimps for Dick Cheney -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020581.html).Citizen Nothing | May 14, 2008, 3:36pm | #
Kochtopussytarians?Brandybuck | May 14, 2008, 3:42pm | #
This was 1870-1913.Bullhockey. That was the era of the centralized fractional reserve gold standard. We had a different gold standard before 1860, it just wasn't centralized, and had a few more controls against fractional lending. The era of 1787-1860 was not characterized by booms and busts like the later era.
Cosmotarian Overlord | May 14, 2008, 3:49pm | #
Paul:"If we're wrong, then all we've done is eliminate some taxes on gold and silver. No harm done."Weigel: This is awfully optimistic.
Cosmotarian Overlord: You tell him Weigel, getting rid of taxes could be deadly. All cosmotarians know that unimaginable evils could occur if we get rid of some taxes. Elaborate on this and maybe we can get you a gig as a college economics professor.
I'm just mad that I didn't think of the title, "Children of the rEVOLution." Damned clever, and I love T-Rex...
KingHarvest | May 14, 2008, 3:52pm | #
Anyone catch Ron Paul on NPR's Talk of the Nation today?He spoke well, except for ranting on and on about an irrefutable connection between pro-liberty and pro-life in response to a caller's abortion question...
StraightOuttaMa'sBasement | May 14, 2008, 5:20pm | #
Come on Dave. You can't be so anti-Rothbard that you haven't read What Has Government Done to Our Money?. If you read this, you would know the booms and busts were due to fractional reserve banking. “You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!” Other than that, I found the article to be pretty fair in regards to Dr. Paul.Mad Max | May 14, 2008, 6:17pm | #
"He spoke well, except for ranting on and on about an irrefutable connection between pro-liberty and pro-life in response to a caller's abortion question..."Yeah, what's with this so-called link between life and liberty? The authors of the Declaration of Indepenence had a similar obsession ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"), as did the authors of the Constitution (the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments refer to "life, liberty and property"). Then there's Thomas Jefferson's comment that "The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
I mean, blah blah blah, what a bunch of weirdos!
And did you notice how the Declaration of Independence says people are "*created* equal" with inalianable rights, not "born equal," when everyone knows that you're not fully human until you've come through the birth canal?
But what do you expect from religious fundamentalists like Thomas Jefferson, with his belief in our rights coming from a so-called "God."
Joel | May 14, 2008, 6:56pm | #
What's this? Reason writes an article about Ron Paul and not only gives the newsletters no more than passing mention, but is actually complimentary?My universe is in chaos! Must re-read article and find my error!
Paul never sounds as certain as when he gets to link this all to monetary policy. He's rarely less convincing. ... This is awfully optimistic.
Oh. That's okay, then.
Travis | May 14, 2008, 7:08pm | #
Mad Max,Good job on the Freddie's Dead lyrics, but it was a Curtis Mayfield song on the Super Fly soundtrack( one the best albums ever), Fishbone just covered it.
Francisco Torres | May 14, 2008, 7:13pm | #
The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era.Mr. Weigel does not know much about economic history, does he? Nor does he understand money, fractional reserve banking, central banking, interest rate manipulation, money supply rate... all things that affect a boom-bust cycle. The "fiat money" era has seen more devastating effects of the boom-bust cycle, including a couple of very terrible wars.
Travis | May 14, 2008, 7:17pm | #
“You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!”Nice, I haven't seen that movie in years. I going to put it on my Netflix queue.
Travis | May 14, 2008, 7:21pm | #
'Even Friedman eventually gave up on responsible management of the money by policrats."I am for the gold standard, but Friedman's idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve & setting a yearly steady rate of inflation with fiat money makes sense also.
Francisco Torres | May 14, 2008, 7:41pm | #
I am for the gold standard, but Friedman's idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve & setting a yearly steady rate of inflation with fiat money makes sense also.Ok, which rate? Who sets it, and why?
Brian Kominsky | May 14, 2008, 8:11pm | #
Friedman's argument in favor of setting a steady rate of increase in the money supply makes more sense than the herky jerky machinations of the Fed. The idea is to approximate the rate of growth in producitivy/economic growth with the growth of the money supply.While it would be better for many reasons, one of them being the ability for people and businesses to do economic planning with some certainty, it is still not as good as getting rid of the Fed.
Ron Paul's idea of having gold and silver as competing currency is a very good step toward making the Fed irrelevant. Inflate, and contracts will all be negotiated in metal. Keep the money supply reasonable, and the dollar will stay the currency of choice. But it would certainly give us a hammer to pound the Fed with should they get out of control. And fractional reserve banking would certainly have to be brought under control somehow. Maybe removing government guarantees to account holders would force a little discipline on the banking class. That and education would go a long way toward bringing about economic liberty.
And Dave's alternative is to keep the Fed? Sounds like a really bad and unlibertarian idea. Maybe Bob Barr can get behind it.
Ugh, Couldn't Weigel stop pretending to be a libertarian ? Can't he get a job at New Republic, or maybe Mother Jones ?
economic upheaval caused by the gold standard ? Well, shouldn't a Libertarian want economic upheaval, for all the Feds stabilization, the economic mobility of people has decreased. The Rich stay Rich. Economic Upheaval is a great equalizer, and you shouldn't fear it so much, particularly if you are a libertarian.
economic upheaval caused by the gold standard ? Well, shouldn't a Libertarian want economic upheaval, for all the Feds stabilization, the economic mobility of people has decreased. The Rich stay Rich. Economic Upheaval is a great equalizer, and you shouldn't fear it so much, particularly if you are a libertarian.
♪ | May 14, 2008, 11:40pm | #
And fractional reserve banking would certainly have to be brought under control somehow. Maybe removing government guarantees to account holders would force a little discipline on the banking class.That's all it would take. Let banks with bad business practices fail. However, it is hard to resist the political pressure for bailout.
Amber | May 15, 2008, 4:16am | #
"The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era. They provided much steadier footing for radical movements."Were they really worse than the world-wide great depression, that ushered in the Nazis, not to mention completely altered the size and scope of the U.S. fed. gov't and changed the national economy with all those New Deal programs that are still reallocating wealth in the opposite direction that they claimed they would? Maybe. But, I would think not.
It seems to me that all that was done with the passing of the Fed Reserve Act was to turn smaller, more isolated banking crises into national, global catastrophes. The Act didn't do anything to address the reasons for bank runs: insufficient deposits as a result of fractional banking; it just moved the operation up a few notches/ So now the depressions are more severe and the effects more wide spread. The three most severe contractions in U.S. history took place in the 20th centruty, not the 19th. And, as far as I can tell, the 20th century provided more extreme, authoritarian, genocidal, aggressive regimes than the 19th.
Not to say that the 1800s weren't full of crises and corruption, of course they were. Obviously, I am not a historian, but the above passage just struck me as questionable when contrasted with the little I do know.
jmr | May 15, 2008, 8:41am | #
If Ron Paul's wrong about fiat money, please explain these graphs:http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/borrow
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOGNONBR
(note "conspiratorial" source I'm using, too.) Why must libertarians ignore the obvious history of fiat "money"?? What's different about these graphs from Weimar Germany, anyway??? And the REAL problem is, once this hits the fan and I say "I told you so," the same idiots who denied any problem with fiat "money" are guaranteed (mark my words...) to blame hard money types like ME!! Dimwits.
JMR
libertreee | May 15, 2008, 9:51am | #
I think Ron Paul envisions not a gold standard, but a return to the Jacksonian/Van Buren idea of free banking. He doesn't want the government to guarantee the price of gold, but to allow the market to recognize gold contracts.Ron Paul's Minority Report to the Gold Commission
(co written with Murray Rothbard) should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand how the monetary issue affected American history.
By the way, the US never really had a "gold standard". It was always a bimetalic standard. The government fixed ration between gold and silver was one of the weaknesses of the system, as the Congress could not keep up with the real monetary ratio.
libertreee | May 15, 2008, 9:52am | #
"ration" should be "ratio". sorryMad Max | May 15, 2008, 10:28am | #
Travis,Thank you for the correction, and I'm sorry for dissing Curtis Mayfield.
DpC | May 15, 2008, 10:29am | #
Seriously, Weigel. . .just let it go, man.jmr | May 15, 2008, 10:33am | #
Note what Greenspan said here:http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html
"A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion."
Somehow, I believe Alan's grasp of US monetary history exceeds that of the average cosmotarian writer for Reason, great as I'm sure they are...
JMR
Gabe Harris | May 15, 2008, 10:47am | #
I've never heard the big enemies of free-markets for currencies argue that the Fed doesn't make it easier for the Federal Governments to borrow excessively and thus unfairly bind future generations with the chains of debt they never asked for.They frequently say that booms and bust were worse before the Fed, yet real economic growth was higher before the Fed. Inflation was lower before the fed and the wealth was less concentrated in the top 1% than it has been afterwards. In spite of this, the anti- freedom advocates constantly bring up the problem of increasing wealth disparity and try to lay blame on free-markets. The media and others on the left eat this up and more creeping socialism always ensues.(to the point that now we have see real incomes for individuals fall over the last 20 years for the first time in US history)!
When a fed was created, an enormous amount of power was put into the hands of a very small group of people. Nevermind Rothbard and Mises, even a decent reading of Hayek or Thomas Jefferson should make one think twice before taking this kind of power away from the free market and handing it over to a few "experts".
This concentration of power can be used to accumulate greater wealth for those who hold influence over the power. Dupes, naives and useful idiots seem to lack the financial expertise or knowledge of human nature to comprehend the MANY ways that this power can be used to help those with the power at the expense of those without the power. Weigel please think a little more about this.
Gabe Harris | May 15, 2008, 11:09am | #
"The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era. They provided much steadier footing for radical movements."Amber,
It seems that David Weigel thinks the Bolsheviks(USSR), Fabians(Britain and USA) and Nationalist Socialist(Germany) were nothing compared to the radical whiskey rebellion or the radical abolitionist in favor of ending Slavery. The radicals of the 18th and 19th century were trying to get out from under oppressive mercantilist taxes of the British empire or fighting against the conscriptionist, mercantilist empire based in the money centers of the North. Radicals in the 19th century were trying to get such crazy things as universal male suffrage and ending taxes on food. Once you see the sort of radical ideas being pushed before the Fed and afterwards....you get an idea of who Weigel is spewing propaganda for(people in favor of mercantilist/facists/crony capitalist empires...at the expense of free competition, challenges to the ruling elite, property rights etc. Seriously, where does this line of argument come from Weigel? who is it that thinks the radicalism in the 18th and 19th century was worse than that of the 20th and 21st century? It is one of the most absurd notions you have pushed here.
Egosumabbas | May 15, 2008, 11:51am | #
Here's some more fuel to add to the fire. Did you know that a central bank with fiat currency is one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto?♪ | May 15, 2008, 1:06pm | #
By the way, the US never really had a "gold standard". It was always a bimetalic standard. The government fixed ration between gold and silver was one of the weaknesses of the system, as the Congress could not keep up with the real monetary ratio.Free banking would also allow silver contracts, or industrial silicon contracts or whatever, without any ratios fixed by congress.
I could imagine that when the dust settled on such a system, most things might have two prices. Prices in ounces of gold and ounces of silver, with the ratio constantly changing.
Cosmotarian Overlord | May 15, 2008, 1:08pm | #
Did you know that it is also one of the planks of the Federal Council of Churches(later to become National Council of Churches) put together by John Foster Dulles and the Rockefellers?http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801396,00.html
Egosumabbas | May 15, 2008, 2:08pm | #
@Cosmotarian Overload (mispelling intended)Wow, so I guess the Religious Right really is neither.
mike | May 15, 2008, 2:30pm | #
David Weigel wrote, "The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era."The fact, admitted by Ben Bernanke of the federal reserve on their web site, is the federal reserve caused the Great Depression.
What's so bad with allowing another currency to compete? Why do so many people think competition and a free market are bad?
Let people choose their currency - if you don't like a currency backed by something real, then you can continue to use the Federal Reserve Note (backed by nothing).
Barry | May 16, 2008, 3:27pm | #
Enough debate about the gold-standard, let's watch Marc Bolan do the title-song of this article (with Ringo and Elton backing him up):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xJ_agcMy5c
scineram | May 16, 2008, 4:18pm | #
Any libertarian worth his salt knows that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and as such they are instituted solely to the purpose of-protection of life, liberty and property against foreign threaths
-protection of life, liberty and property against domestic criminals
-enforcement of contracts
-establishment of the proper money supply and interest rates.
Julian Fondren | May 17, 2008, 7:38am | #
written in a voice curiously wittier than his own.Weigel, you're turning into Maureen Dowd.
It is impossible to imagine his new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, [...] being published at all,
Hey, have you heard of this thing called the Mises Institute? Look into that.
Paul sees a direct link between central banking, fiat currency, and the economic crises
Hey, Weigel, have you heard of this thing called the Mises Institute? Look into that.
universally accepted concepts shouldn't be trusted.
Yes, I'll just call you 'Dowd' from now on.
DS | May 18, 2008, 9:53am | #
"David Weigel wrote, "The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era."If this wasn't the standard statist argument repeated billions of times over for more goverment, I'd say that it was one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Recessions (contracting GDP) on average every 5 years, a huge asset bubble in the 1920's leading to the worst economic disaster ever in American history, rampant, out of control inflation in the 1970's, 2 massive financial bubbles and their aftermath, and the loss of 95% of the purchasing power of the dollar. With the brief exception of the Volker era the federal reserve has been nothing more than a dollar printing press. Pumping them out at an ever-increasing rate.
That is the record of central banking in America.
The 19th century, especially the pre-Civil War gold stanadard era in contrast was time of tremendous growth and freedom. Most of the financial panics were just that: brief financial events that had no real, lasting effect on the general economy, jobs and businesses. Most of the financial turmoil was caused by two episodes of going off the gold standard - the War of 1812 and the Civil War - and then the pain of soaking up the excess fiat currency required to return to the currency being anchored to gold. Most the financial panics of the 19th century can be traced to the aftermath of those episodes when the federal government simply printed paper, fiat money to pay for War, with the predictable result - massive inflation. 1819 and 1873 were prime examples.
The 19th century was a time of almost uninterupted economic growth and properity, although hardly a laissez-faire paradise, especially after the Civil War - with federal subsiides and regulation, teh national banking system and a high protective tariff.
Craig | May 19, 2008, 8:58pm | #
The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era.Yeah, that Depression thing was just a bump in the road....
Paul's overheated worry about a Weimar Republic-style collapse kicks the legs out from underneath the argument.
But if the economy actually is headed toward a Weimar Republic-style collapse, it's hard to call any worry "overheated".
jmr | May 20, 2008, 3:44pm | #
Weigel has been completely refuted by the comments to his own article. Must be humbling, dude... Anyway, email me at jray AT martincam.com if anyone -- especially Weigel -- tries to refute the various people who refuted him. Looks pretty sparse for now, so "we" win in a smackdown.JMR
brittany Coo | May 23, 2008, 1:26pm | #
The SNL skit that sums up this whole primary seasonGet These Latest Designs
Bill wants Hill as Veep
This and more on...
http://sensico.wordpress.com/