Yes but he wasn't in support of the New Deal, or anything like the RTC.
and I'm pointing out that it wasn't necessarily a catastrophe to support
something other than the new deal in Western Countries. AS I say, they forgot to stop digging in the same place. It may be that the combination of government demand for subprime debt, combined with
Sarbanes Oxley, and a speculatory bubble that generated our current
crisis, is irreversable, like the Grand Collapse in that sci fi tale I referenced earlier
From the end of pg 409-410 in Sobel's book, I followed it from the link on the Wiki page for Coolidge, the RFC/TARP are uncommonly close
in form and execution
No, CK, Coolidge did no such thing. The problem with the 30s, that distinguishes it from other humdrum economic crisiss like those in the 1890s, was they forgot to 'stop digging' hence it was bad all around,
it destroyed Labour's hopes for a generation, it empowered the Blum
left, it knocked the ground from under Bruning, thereafter known as
the "Hunger Chancellor' Butthat didn't come close to solving the problem
It was more Giishi and Hamguchi that had to bear the brunt of the crisis, in Japan's case. And Primo De Rivera in Spain, just like Carlos Ibanez in Chile fell because of it, as did Irigoyen in Argentina, leading
to the rise of the Colonels, which would lead to Peron
As Schlaes herself points out, Hoover was far from the pure free marketeer that Schlesinger among others, have tried to peddle,
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, his assent to the suicidal Smoot Hawley tariff, were among his misteps. The Depression did a good deal to topple almost all the democratic regimes in that era,from the illfated Ramsay MacDonald in the UK, The Inukai regime in Japan,
the cohorts of Briand in France. Now one wonders what a Baldwin like regime, might have fared in the US
This isn't a new insight that I've offered, but the 1890s might be a better parallel, both in the US, with Coxey's army and Bryan, but the strife between Boulangists and Anarchists in France, and similar actions in Spain, There are less parallels in the UK, although Salisbury
did indicate the return of the Tories
I recall that we caught up to the valuations in '29, around the half of that decade, we had fallen so far by that point.What was the M1 around that time
Conrad has this thing about activist politicians, he wrote his thesis on
Canada's Dupleissis, it's very arguable that the eight years of FDR's
dirigiste regime, had little impact on the final impact. Even Morgenthau
admitted that around 1938 as I recall
That's Ken Pollack, CK, why would they put Pannetta a politician most recently know for cutting covert operations back during the Clinton
administration at OMB in charge of the CIA. Why would you have adjunct advisors that speak of the Moderate Hezbollah, why focus the DHS on Christian ex veteran prolifers and miss the real enemy, folks
who wear their Salafi credentials on their sleives like Hassan
Are we at 1979, well in someways we are, wading through Ixtoc 2, in the Gulf, for instance, then again the full impact of our insane fiscal
policy hasn't come to fruition, and we haven't had a major sustained
foreign policy disaster, thank heaven for small favors, For all of Holder's bluster, we haven't had a "Hallloween Massacre" at the Agency, it's more a slow motion 'Slouching toward Bethlehem' And Ed Koch had more sense in spades then Bloomberg
EXcept he found a reason to cut the requested number of troops, and shorten the timetable for the operation, the war they supposedly believed in, yes he's gotten some good pelts on the wall, although when the Bush administration targeted Hamza Rabia and Abu Faraj Al Libi, he called it 'air raiding villages'. Of course the UN's Special Rapporteur, Mr, Alston wants to curtail even this tool. Against Hamas they say of course they are evil, but effectively they rise up whenever Israel does anything about it, the delusion about closing Gitmo has been well debunked by now, for most credible sources, except for the AP; for which malpractice is a kind
description for what they do.
There are outliers like Schoen and Caddell, who seem pretty sensible, but it's fairly easy to find liberal spokesman, who seem addicted to
the 'Yes but" caveat school of argument. In practice, they are loath to engage in any military operation, or even measures like exploring our won energy that makes us less dependent on unstable foreign resources
We're looking at Future History right, well the entitlement pressures combined with the administration's predilictions make the future situation very unpredictable. We're slated to be out of Iraq, to start
pulling out of Afghanistan, starting next fall. We're slashing our long term air defenses, while China for one, is building up their forward posture in the area. In Hindsight, the signers of the Washington Conference of Naval Power were somewhat naive
Let see we have Iran building at least two bombs, being run by a cross
between Greg Stillson and Jack Bauer, with a war cabinet headed by
a fellow advisor to Islamic militias, willing to deploy force as far away
as Argentina. You have the fellow in N. Korea, living up to his caricature from Team America, the Russian bear arming the former and
probing it's old Imperial stomping grounds, West and Southeast. An administration that is at best 'inattentive' toward all these threats
Yes but he wasn't in support of the New Deal, or anything like the RTC.
and I'm pointing out that it wasn't necessarily a catastrophe to support
something other than the new deal in Western Countries. AS I say, they forgot to stop digging in the same place. It may be that the combination of government demand for subprime debt, combined with
Sarbanes Oxley, and a speculatory bubble that generated our current
crisis, is irreversable, like the Grand Collapse in that sci fi tale I referenced earlier
From the end of pg 409-410 in Sobel's book, I followed it from the link on the Wiki page for Coolidge, the RFC/TARP are uncommonly close
in form and execution
Actually CK, that's not even close to the truth, according to this account, if anything "Silent Cal" was more progressive than Hoover
at that time;
http://books.google.com/books?id=qalHgkJYmN8C&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq=coolidge,+fuess&source=bl&ots=9VPDhOFi8E&sig=bIMs8zsKDfFI2HblMpg6JTBJtKk&hl=en&ei=tscJTKHcBoH78Abaio2MBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=coolidge%2C%20fuess&f=false
http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
No, CK, Coolidge did no such thing. The problem with the 30s, that distinguishes it from other humdrum economic crisiss like those in the 1890s, was they forgot to 'stop digging' hence it was bad all around,
it destroyed Labour's hopes for a generation, it empowered the Blum
left, it knocked the ground from under Bruning, thereafter known as
the "Hunger Chancellor' Butthat didn't come close to solving the problem
Thanks, Fuster
It was more Giishi and Hamguchi that had to bear the brunt of the crisis, in Japan's case. And Primo De Rivera in Spain, just like Carlos Ibanez in Chile fell because of it, as did Irigoyen in Argentina, leading
to the rise of the Colonels, which would lead to Peron
As Schlaes herself points out, Hoover was far from the pure free marketeer that Schlesinger among others, have tried to peddle,
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, his assent to the suicidal Smoot Hawley tariff, were among his misteps. The Depression did a good deal to topple almost all the democratic regimes in that era,from the illfated Ramsay MacDonald in the UK, The Inukai regime in Japan,
the cohorts of Briand in France. Now one wonders what a Baldwin like regime, might have fared in the US
This isn't a new insight that I've offered, but the 1890s might be a better parallel, both in the US, with Coxey's army and Bryan, but the strife between Boulangists and Anarchists in France, and similar actions in Spain, There are less parallels in the UK, although Salisbury
did indicate the return of the Tories
I recall that we caught up to the valuations in '29, around the half of that decade, we had fallen so far by that point.What was the M1 around that time
Conrad has this thing about activist politicians, he wrote his thesis on
Canada's Dupleissis, it's very arguable that the eight years of FDR's
dirigiste regime, had little impact on the final impact. Even Morgenthau
admitted that around 1938 as I recall
That's Ken Pollack, CK, why would they put Pannetta a politician most recently know for cutting covert operations back during the Clinton
administration at OMB in charge of the CIA. Why would you have adjunct advisors that speak of the Moderate Hezbollah, why focus the DHS on Christian ex veteran prolifers and miss the real enemy, folks
who wear their Salafi credentials on their sleives like Hassan
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/75287/operation-make-the-world-hate-us
Exhibit A of what I was talking about, it makes his previous outing, we linked here, only slightly less illi informed
Are we at 1979, well in someways we are, wading through Ixtoc 2, in the Gulf, for instance, then again the full impact of our insane fiscal
policy hasn't come to fruition, and we haven't had a major sustained
foreign policy disaster, thank heaven for small favors, For all of Holder's bluster, we haven't had a "Hallloween Massacre" at the Agency, it's more a slow motion 'Slouching toward Bethlehem' And Ed Koch had more sense in spades then Bloomberg
EXcept he found a reason to cut the requested number of troops, and shorten the timetable for the operation, the war they supposedly believed in, yes he's gotten some good pelts on the wall, although when the Bush administration targeted Hamza Rabia and Abu Faraj Al Libi, he called it 'air raiding villages'. Of course the UN's Special Rapporteur, Mr, Alston wants to curtail even this tool. Against Hamas they say of course they are evil, but effectively they rise up whenever Israel does anything about it, the delusion about closing Gitmo has been well debunked by now, for most credible sources, except for the AP; for which malpractice is a kind
description for what they do.
There are outliers like Schoen and Caddell, who seem pretty sensible, but it's fairly easy to find liberal spokesman, who seem addicted to
the 'Yes but" caveat school of argument. In practice, they are loath to engage in any military operation, or even measures like exploring our won energy that makes us less dependent on unstable foreign resources
We're looking at Future History right, well the entitlement pressures combined with the administration's predilictions make the future situation very unpredictable. We're slated to be out of Iraq, to start
pulling out of Afghanistan, starting next fall. We're slashing our long term air defenses, while China for one, is building up their forward posture in the area. In Hindsight, the signers of the Washington Conference of Naval Power were somewhat naive
Let see we have Iran building at least two bombs, being run by a cross
between Greg Stillson and Jack Bauer, with a war cabinet headed by
a fellow advisor to Islamic militias, willing to deploy force as far away
as Argentina. You have the fellow in N. Korea, living up to his caricature from Team America, the Russian bear arming the former and
probing it's old Imperial stomping grounds, West and Southeast. An administration that is at best 'inattentive' toward all these threats