Xxx passwords. Free xxx teen cheerleaders. Free xxx videos. Xxx. Free xxx. Xxx britney spears….

Free hardcore porn. Underage porn. Home made porn. Porn. Free porn. Lesbian porn. Incest porn….

i thought we didnt trust academics. especially from UCLA.

ernesto on March 15, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Nice use of strawman there. You must practice a lot to get that good.

1) It’s not academics we distrust, it’s left wing academics.
2) When a left wing academic gets something right, and has the courage to publish that fact, it’s noteworthy.

Oy!

Here’s the actual path.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?

Surely someone prior to 2004 noticed FDR prolonged the recession of 1931-33 by 12 years due to idiotic policies.

angryed on March 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM

There have been a number of studies that reached the same conclusion. It has also been common wisdom amongst most economists for many years.

The problem is getting the truth past the gatekeepers of our culture, the teacher’s unions, the MSM, etc.

UCLA on FDR, stimulus packages in 2004

Deja vu in a nutshell:
1930s and FDR = Failures
2009 and Barry Soetoro = Failures

Oh, crud.

Quote of the day.

They have to answer to constituents who collectively understand economics very poorly. That pushes politicians to think that, in Mel Brooks’ immortal words, they have to do something “to save their phony-baloney jobs”.

Reminds me of last year, and Allahpundit supporting McCain and castigating those of us who oppossed the bail-out on the grounds that it was more important that the ignorant masses see the Republican party as trying to do something, rather than worrying about trying to do the right thing.

bayam on March 15, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Um, what? Very little governmental intervention? In the single most corporatist period in our existence you’re suggesting that it was a period of little governmental involvement in the economy? In a period of time where massive businesses kept most of the political establishment in their pockets, and subsequently when tariffs pushed an average of 40%, very little intervention? A different sort of intervention, perhaps, but it would baffle me if you were to suggest that there was very little intervention of any kind.

If a government is to be effective as an activist in the economy it has to be apolitical, or else under the best of circumstances the economy enters a political business cycle, or in the worst of circumstances (like ours) it becomes completely self destructive. Detaching trade from supply and demand causes recessions, and detaching trade from supply and demand is all that an activist government can do. It can trick you in the short run how much money is worth, it can keep better goods from competing with you in the short run, it can borrow money from foreign countries and spend it domestically, but all of this is short term, even Keynes knew this. Our fiscal and monetary policy has been absolutely retarded, there is no way of explaining that away, nor is there a way to argue that it’s anything short of pure naivity to believe that a government can be apolitical and technocratic enough in managing fiscal and monetary policy to ever use things like central banks and deficit spending with the responsibility and moderation necessary to never cause the disasterous recessions we’ve experienced twice in the 70′s, twice in the 80′s, and the one we’re going through right now. Balanced budgets and a basket of commodities backed currency are the only things that government can realistically handle, and if you think otherwise I’ve got a bridge to sell you in San Francisco.

Amendment X on March 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM

And a very useful article it is, too. I’ve passed it on to a few others, including one woman with a High School age son who had gotten interested in the subject.

Well worth reading, and redistributing.

Yes, which we have discovered repeatedly since; the 1970s practically gives a how-to on that lesson. So why do politicians intervene? Two reasons. They have to answer to constituents who collectively understand economics very poorly. That pushes politicians to think that, in Mel Brooks’ immortal words, they have to do something “to save their phony-baloney jobs”.

*sigh*

Yep.

We can blame the politicians ’til the cows come home. Ain’t gonna change a thing.

Until the general public understands fully the import of the American Revolution, the original intent of the Constitution, basic economics, and that capitalism is simply the natural extension of individual liberty, we’ll continue to breed snakes, charlatans, and prostitutes in Washington.

And to think that we’d need a couple of economics professors to point out the obvious…

reminds me of a sign I saw the other day in a public restroom:

“These are low flow toilets, please hold the handle down longer than normal.”

If your point is that the Harvard business school produces better managers than the school of government, I would just point out that George W. Bush holds an MBA from Harvard — Mr. “I abandoned free market principles to save the free market” (or whatever it was he said) is not my idea of a competent market manager.

AZCoyote on March 15, 2009 at 2:01 PM

I’m well aware of Bush’s MBA, but I don’t think Bush is representative of the typical HBS grad, so I’m not sure your one counterexample disproves my point.

I just can’t see how it can.

It’s like having your parents give you money every time you get yourself in financial trouble. You will never learn to address the root causes yourself. And when they’re gone what then?

Update II: The boss had this back in January

Its ok Ed, this sort of study needs to be republished every week, from now until the 2010 elections.