The Old Deal

Zombie New Dealers to the left of me and the right.

By
216
President Joe Biden arrives to deliver remarks at the IBM facility in Poughkeepsie, New York, on October 6, 2022. (Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

Dear Reader (with a special “aroooo” to the world’s oldest canine),

Okay, who’s been monkeying around with the monkey’s paw?  

Maybe it was some panelist at the Aspen Ideas Festival, or maybe a college freshman got so worked up by the brilliance of his term paper he broke the glass and used one of his three sinister simian wishes, I don’t know. But it sure seems like someone wished to revive bipartisan economic policy, and now we can hear the ominous knocking of a reanimated corpse at the door (don’t blame me if you never read the story, this is a great metaphor). 

A couple weeks ago, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan gave one of those Very Serious speeches over at the Brookings Institution. The outlines of his case should be very, very familiar if you’ve paid close attention to these debates for at least the last 75 years.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
216
By
Comments (216)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Reading this at the same time as finishing up Amity Shlaes’ book on the Great Depression. If we’d maintained free market policies after the crash, we wouldn’t have had ten years of depression. If anything, things were worse in 1937-38 than when FDR took office.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Another classic G-File. So true. The New Right might as well have the motto “Make the Right Left Again.” To the extent that there is any consensus, it is against the free market, against free trade, against limiting the power of government, against strict constructionism of the Constitution, in favor of industrial policy, and against “endless foreign wars” (with the corollary of the inevitable jeremiad about how “imperialist” America is the great evil responsible for all that goes wrong in the world).

    Take just one issue: healthcare. Who the heck is advocating free market healthcare outside of a few brave souls like Keith Smith and the libertarians? Everyone with any power is in favor of active government involvement in healthcare. And then we have hear idiotic crap about how the neoliberals are to blame for everything. When have they been in charge? Seriously? Apparently it’s news to the free market fundamentalists that they’ve been running Washington for the last thirty years because we barely have a recognizable free market, the size and scope of government has increased at a breathtaking pace along with skyrocketing federal spending and debt, and we have yet to eliminate a single meaningful government program.

    Collapse
  3. Philip.R.M.Hunt

    Small government conservatives like Jonah say they are promoting the original vision of the founders, but it is really only the 1776 vision. By 1787 most of the founders had concluded that the small weak government of the article of confederation had resulted in failure and anarchy so they met to craft a new government that would be “strong enough to deal with all the nation’s problems” as Washington put it. After ratification of the Constitution Washington and Hamilton started on the path to bigger government, including the first industrial policy. Jefferson was appalled and fought it but when he became President he did not roll it back. Roll back did not rally happen until Jackson.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      And if we had a government of the size that Hamilton wanted, it would be MUCH smaller than it is today. The vast majority of the expansion of the federal government happened in the 20th century and as much as Hamilton was in favor of an active executive, we have departed strikingly from his vision. The Federalist Papers don’t suggest that a vast administration should make law (regulation), let alone judge those laws (administrative courts), and enforce them. Wilson and FDR departed greatly from the Madisonian and Hamiltonian vision of American government, as Wilson himself was consciously aware that he was doing. He wrote and said as much!

      Moreover, the problem with the Articles of Confederation wasn’t that it was too libertarian, but that it didn’t establish the federal government as being over and above the states. This meant that there was too little ability for the nation to act as one and we risked fracturing into many small duchies. One can believe in federal supremacy and be against state nullification of federal laws and still believe that the size and scope of both federal and state government should be limited.

      Finally, the purpose and design of the US constitution is to limit power, and to place power where it is most effective. Therefore, the legislature legislates because it is the branch best suited for effectively carrying that out. The national government is strong in its role - which is performing the governing function - but it does not have broad authority beyond that role (ie to dictate how businesses should be run). In fact the Constitution explicitly limits the power of the federal government to regulate by only the commerce that happens across state lines - federal regulation of any business activity that occurs solely within the borders of a single state is now and has always been unconstitutional.

      Collapse
      1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

        Ben said: “the purpose and design of the US constitution is to limit power, and to place power where it is most effective.”
        The US Constitution does have a limited power design. However, the purpose of the Constitution is found in the preamble: form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.

        The delegates at the Constitutional Convention did not originally want a limited and enumerated power design. They voted to adapt Madison’s Virginia Plan as the starting point and that was way more powerful than what it the Constitution ended up being. It was also less powerful than what Madison presented to the Virginia delegation, but they toned it down before presenting it to the convention. The convention passed, by a margin of eight states to two, a resolution to give the national legislature the power to “legislate in all cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately incompetent.” (Beeman, Richard. Plain, Honest Men (p. 340). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.) That was a very broad grant of power. However, when the convention delegated to a “committee of detail” the task of putting the convention’s resolutions into a final document, the committee unilaterally altered the power grant. “When Randolph was given the opportunity to prepare the rough draft of the Committee of Detail report, he deleted that broad, general grant of power to the Congress. He inserted in its place a list of some eighteen specifically enumerated powers of Congress—among them the power to raise money by taxation, to make treaties of peace, to coin money, to establish post offices, etc. Randolph's initial list was refined over several drafts, and at some point in the process still another item was added— most likely by James Wilson, who continued to prefer a general grant of power to the Congress, rather than specifically enumerated ones. The additional clause would come to assume enormous importance in the evolution of the power of America's national government. It gave to Congress the power “to make all Laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” The “necessary and proper” clause, as it came to be interpreted once the new government commenced operation, would serve as a powerful engine of congressional power and, by extension, a powerful means of extending the power of the federal government. (Beeman, Richard. Plain, Honest Men (p. 340). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          Clearly the Founders disagreed themselves over the Constitution and the role of government. Many, for instance, considered the Constitution enumerated powers to be a list of the only things they could do. The debates afterwards between strict and loose constructionists would fall along these lines. The necessary and proper clause quickly became an opportunity for abuse, along with the interstate commerce clause later, because they left the door open to relatively open-ended use of power.

          I’ll also point our that Madison originally didn’t think we needed a Bill of Rights, because federal power was limited to a single list, whereas freedom shouldn’t be.

          Collapse
          1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

            "Clearly the Founders disagreed themselves over the Constitution and the role of government."
            Yes, this was my original point in this thread.

            "The debates afterwards between strict and loose constructionists would fall along these lines."
            Yes. After the ratification the anti-federalists shifted their argument from "the Constitution is too powerful - don't ratify it" to their new argument "the N&P clause is meaningless, and the enumerated powers should be interpreted strictly."

            " The necessary and proper clause quickly became an opportunity for abuse,.."
            The N&P was a fudge that allowed both sides in the convention (represented by Randolph and Wilson) to each think they had gotten most of what they wanted. However, the Federalists did sell the ratification as limited government so I think that should be honored even if the N&P was just a ploy by the Federalists to sneak a defacto unlimited power grant past ratification. I am satisfied with the Court's interpretation of CC and N&P with Lopez marking the maximum extent of the CC, but I would be OK with overturning Wickard. I would be comfortable with a defacto unlimited grant, but Wickard is hard to justify without admitting there are no real limits to congressional power and the limited powers thing was all a sham.

            I am not concerned about abuse of the delegation of power to congress, but I am concerned about the delegation of legislative power to the administrative state. The Court looks like it will overturn Chevron deference this term and I fully support that. I don't think there needs to be any changes to the jurisprudence on the major questions doctrine or the non-delegation doctrine, but they need to be applied more often, as the Court has done this term, notably in the EPA case.

            Also, even though I am comfortable with the federal government having broad powers, I don't think it is always wise to use them. I buy into the notion of subsidiarity - that issues should be handled at the lowest level possible. I think there are federal agencies that could be dissolved and the issues turned over to the states. Department of Education is one. Alternatively, I think some agencies could be advisory only, using their superior science power to make model rules, but allow state legislatures and or agencies the freedom to adapt, modify or reject.

            Collapse
      2. Philip.R.M.Hunt

        Ben said: “...the problem with the Articles of Confederation wasn’t that it was too libertarian, but that..”
        The founders had many problems with the Confederation and you list some of them. But “too libertarian” was one of the ones they mentioned. However, they did not use the word “libertarian” (I don’t think it had been invented yet). Instead of “too libertarian” they said “licentious” which at the time mean “too libertarian.”

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          Ha! I don’t think that’s what they meant…

          Collapse
          1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

            Wood dedicates a whole chapter to "licentiousness" and what it meant to the founder in his seminal book, which is really key to understanding the thinking of the founders. Here are some key paragraphs:
            "Liberty, defined as the power held by the people, was thus the victim and very antithesis of despotism. Yet the people, like the rulers, could abuse their power; such a perversion of liberty was called licentiousness or anarchy. It was not so much a collective as an individual perversion, each man doing what was right in his own eyes, running amuck and ultimately dissolving all social bonds. “Liberty,” (Wood, Gordon S.. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Published by the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture and the University of North Carolina Press) (p. 23). Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.)

            "liberty had been misunderstood and falsely equated with licentiousness or the liberty of man in a state of nature which was “a state of war, rapine and murder.” True liberty was “natural liberty restrained in such manner, as to render society one great family; where every one must consult his neighbour's happiness, as well as his own.” In a republic “each individual gives up all private interest that is not consistent with the general good, the interest of the whole body.”30 (Wood, Gordon S.. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (pp. 60-61)).

            Collapse
      3. Philip.R.M.Hunt

        Ben said: “if we had a government of the size that Hamilton wanted,...”.
        In all my reading about the early days of the Republic, I never came across any of the founders discussing what size of government they wanted, but only how strong a government they wanted. Size and strength are related but not equivalent. A government can be strong in the sense that it has been given a lot of powers, may still be somewhat small if it does not use all of them to the fullest extent. The vision that Hamilton articulated was for a powerful nation that had the strength to stand up to the European powers and not become a vassal dependent. To do that he believed the US must pursue commerce and industry. To do that, he believed we needed a government that would intervene in the economy as necessary to promote commerce and industry as well full time professional army and navy to protect our commerce and industry. Jefferson was opposed. He agreed that pursuit of commerce and industry would require stronger government, but thought that would be a road to tyranny. His vision was that the US would remain an undeveloped agricultural republic and let England and France do the commerce and industry. He thought the US needed no stronger government than the Confederation, protected by amateur militias and armed merchant ships. Both were aware that this was the exact same debate William the Third had with parliament after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. William won that debate and so did Hamilton. Actually, when Jefferson became President, he largely continued Hamilton’s policies.

        Why didn’t Hamilton include a large administrative state in his vision? I think because Hamilton was a practical man and did not waste time thinking about how to solve non-existent problems with non-existent tools. Hamilton did not envision the FAA because air travel did not exist at the time (notwithstanding Trump saying the Continental Army took over the airports at the Battle of Yorktown). The main tools of the administrative state are science and statistical analysis. Gauss’s discovery of the normal distribution curve and regression analysis were decades in the future. Chemical and biological sciences were too crude to be useful. The best “science” on the efficacy of leaches for treatment of fever was little more than guesswork. Why build and staff an FDA if all they were doing is guessing?

        Ben said: “Wilson and FDR departed greatly from the Madisonian and Hamiltonian vision of American government.”
        During the Washington administration, Madison had switched sides backed Jefferson’s vision. I would agree that Wilson and FDR departed from that vision. Regarding Hamilton’s vision, I think Wilson and FDR acted to extend and expand Hamilton’s vision of a strong and powerful government making the nation strong and powerful. Regardless, we are not obligated to follow any of the founders’ various visions for the country. In fact, the founders themselves discouraged that, Jefferson in particular. He said each generation must come up with its own vision, cut its own path to suit its own time. We are obligated to act within the Constitution, but in the progressive era the Constitution was amended several times to enable the federal government to do things that it originally could not.Show lessExpand full comment

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          I think what we are mainly I’m disagreement about is the difference in degree and kind of Hamilton’s strong government to ours. I’ll note that the Constitution was originally understood, including by Hamilton, as limiting federal power.

          Collapse
  4. Philip.R.M.Hunt

    Jonah:” Indeed, many people—I’m one of them—would argue that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression”

    That is a hard argument to make when the countries that follow New Deal style Keynesian policies like the US and Nazi Germany came out of the Great Depression faster and stronger than those that did not go Keynesian like Britain and France.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      That’s false. Read Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man.

      Collapse
      1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

        Amity Shlaes' book looks like it is worthwhile. Unfortunately, I don't have copy, though I will put it on my list to read in the future. Could you send page cite of the exact part of the book that you think refutes my statement? If you could, please copy and paste a lead paragraph or conclusion paragraph of the specific argument. If it looks interesting, I may immediately buy a copy of Shlaes book. In the meantime, please take a look at the response I just posted to Douglas.Puffert just below this one. who also contested my statement but had a citation to evidence that was free and more readily accessible. I have a hunch Shlaes argument is similar to Douglas.Puffert's, so my response would likely be similar.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          Well, I have the audiobook version so I don’t exactly have page numbers…

          The thesis of the entire book, though, is that Keynesian economics prolonged the Depression rather than ending it.

          Collapse
    2. Douglas.Puffert

      Not true. See, for example figure 6 in the Economic History Network's encyclopedia article: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-recovery-in-the-great-depression/.

      Collapse
      1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

        You are citing a study that explicitly says that is going against the current consensus view. Even one of the section headings says so:
        “ Difficulties with Current Understanding
        According to the currently accepted interpretation, the recovery owes its existence to increases in the stock of money. …”

        Collapse
        1. Douglas.Puffert

          Your reply comes across as bluster and obfuscation. I referred only to a specific figure showing data that refute your point, not to the "study" as a whole. (Whether the study's author is right about the consensus is irrelevant. That consensus does not support your interpretation either.)

          Data show that the US most certainly did _not_ come out of the Great Depression faster than the UK (among others). Germany did come out of it fast, by militarizing the economy — and the population — in a way that I rather doubt you would support.

          If you wish to engage on the matter, please discuss data on relative rates of recovery in different countries. What specialists (notably Barry Eichengreen) have made very clear is that each country hit bottom and started recovering when they ditched the gold standard. Rates of subsequent recovery varied, and reasons for that variation are indeed debatable.

          Collapse
          1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

            Bluster and obfuscation? Not my intention, but you did not give me much to go on. “Not true. See, for example figure 6” is not much of an argument. It would help if you explained how figure 6 proves my statement not true. Since you have now made clear that you are only offering fig. 6 as evidence, not the entire article, I will analyze it to see if I can figure out what your argument is.

            My original statement was not well formed (“[T]he US and Nazi Germany came out of the Great Depression faster and stronger than those that did not go Keynesian like Britain and France”). I think it depends on how one interprets “came out...faster and stronger.” Also, what metric do we use? GDP? Rate of GPD growth? Unemployment rate? What I meant was who came out of the 1932 trough with the higher rates of growth of GDP.

            Now let’s look at this figure 6. The metric used is industrial production. I was thinking GDP is a better metric, but OK. Using my interpretation of “came out...faster and stronger,” Germany and US clearly have higher rates of growth than any other countries 1932-1937. The slopes of the curves for US and Germany are steeper than any other country during this period.

            How about total growth 1932-1936? Germany and US still beat Britain and France. Why did I stop at 1936 when the graph goes to 1937? For the same reason the graph stops at 1937 – that end point gives the graph maker the result he wanted and 1936 supports my statement. Also, FDR took his foot off the Keynesian gas pedal after that. What happens to US industrial production after that nasty dip at the end of 1937? Answer: It bounces back in a year and a half to the 105% of 1929 level. It seems to me that the start of WWII in fall 1939 would be the more natural end point, since most historians and economists think that is the end of the Great Depression. I don’t have the data for industrial production levels in fall 1939 for UK and France, but I suspect that the US bounce back puts US over Britain for total growth 1932-1939. (For US Industrial production 1937-1940 see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#/media/File:1930Industry.svg).

            I think the only what you can slice and dice this figure to disprove at least part of my statement is to interpret “came out...faster and stronger” as who returned to 1929 levels first. Well France is still a loser here. No matter how you slice it my statement will at least be half correct because France is the loser no matter what. UK does beat everyone back to 1929 levels.

            GDP data supports my statement even better than industrial production for the same periods. 1932-1938 Germany grew 67.5%, US 46.6%, UK 25.7%, and France 7.9%.
            (See https://www.statista.com/statistics/1237792/europe-us-gdp-change-great-depression/).

            I am not sure what you mean by Germany “militarizing” its economy. Most of Germany's Keynesian spending was on re-armament – buying weapons. Also, they increased the number of men in the military. Once Germany started doing that, I would have no problem for the US following suit. Actually, that may have been more prudent.

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Normb1442

    The following sentences should tell anyone that Jonah Goldberg is a hopeless hack.

    "When the war (WWI) ended, Republicans vowed a “return to normalcy,” released the political prisoners, and dismantled the political controls of the economy. And progressives hated it. They spent the 1920s pounding the table that “we planned in war” and we should plan the peacetime economy, too. Seizing the political opportunity of a depression—which was not yet “Great”—FDR, a Wilson administration retread, vowed to use Wilson’s wartime techniques to fight the economic crisis."

    Almost nothing in these words is true, but the words "which was not yet 'Great'" alone disqualifies him from being taken seriously. The unemployment rate in 1933, when FDR took office, was 25%, up from 9% in 1930. It fell in every year after that until 1938, when FDR's decision to balance the budget and cut many of the programs Jonah rants most about reversed the trend. I have no time to waste on whatever half-assed explanations Jonah may have for this -- the fact that unemployment hit 25% on the watch of the guys who did what he wanted them to do tells me he's immune to logic. You had the government from 1921 to 1933, Jonah, and the unemployment rate hit 25% on YOUR watch. Unlike some in these pages, I know you do know the meaning of the word chutzpah. Those sentences exemplify it.

    It is ALSO interesting that he takes the part of the "political prisoners" Wilson locked up, because you will strive in vain to find a single conservative of that time who thought it wasn't a good idea to do so. There was a war in Europe going on, which a lot of people thought we shouldn't get involved in, and Wilson locked up anyone who thought otherwise and closed newspapers that said the same. These people and these newspapers were not those of conservative points of view who were horrified at the fact that the country was violating free market principles. They were SOCIALISTS, who would have done a hell of a lot more destroying of the free market than Wilson ever contemplated, and whose removal from the political scene by Wilson during the war was widely celebrated by conservatives. As for the war, I think only one Congressperson voted against it, and it's not exactly news that the economy gets rigidly controlled during wartime. Jonah knows this, but he's out to portray Wilson as a somehow the opposite of liberty loving free market conservatives, and the facts have to go.

    Yes, Harding let Gene Debs out of jail. By that time, of course, a once vigorous socialist movement was in ruins and had to contend its own internecine battles with the Bolsheviks.

    Please do not take it that I am making a brief here for Wilson -- I'm not. But reading Jonah on American history is the closest thing to hearing Donald Trump's self-serving twaddle I've seen on TD before, and I'm no longer reading the words of a man whose commitment to an ideology trumps the truth.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      Last I checked, Jonah Goldberg was not in charge of the federal government between 1920 and 1933. As far as I know, he wasn’t even born then!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Normb1442

        I was speaking figuratively -- as in, people whose economic policies Jonah constantly promotes were in charge. If I had been addressing a progressive in regard to Obamacare, I would have said "You were in charge." This isn't rocket science, Ben.

        People who advocate policies Jonah admires were in charge of the Federal government -- all three branches, usually by sizable majorities -- from 1921 to 1933. Jonah, in discussing this period, COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that the worst Depression in the history of this country occurred on their watch. He mentions the Depression as if it was a solar eclipse, something which had nothing to do with the fact that people who followed the policies he advocates were in charge. And he then proceeds to tear into those who advocated government intervention as if they were somehow responsible for the Depression. These are the words of a hack.

        Are we clear now?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          Herbert Hoover was no free-marketeer. He believed in a strong and active central government and his response to the initial crash was similar to what FDR’s would have been, except that FDR went farther than Hoover. The initial market crash wasn’t the cause of the Depression - in 1920 or 1921 there was a similar crash and the market rebounded quickly as would be expected in a natural correction. The rest of the 20s was quite prosperous economically. The Depression was deepened and worsened and prolonged by the New Deal.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Normb1442

            1. The recession of 1920-21 was clearly related to the return to normal after the war. The same thing happened after WWII. Blaming anyone for it is futile. When millions of men are ripped from their homes and sent to war, it takes time for things to straighten out again.

            2. "The Depression was deepened and worsened and prolonged by the New Deal." You have said something here that is not true and doesn't stand up to even cursory analysis. If you do nothing but look at the unemployment stats from 1933-1937, it is OBVIOUS that the New Deal was not deepening or worsening the Depression. It IS obvious that starting in 1937 the Depression did indeed worsen (though never to the levels FDR inherited), but anyone who even bothers to read Amity Schlaes knows that this happened when FDR REVERSED his New Deal policies and balanced the budget. This was premature, and yes, it deepened and prolonged the Depression, but it was the return to free market policies, not the continuation of government control policies, that caused the reversal of what had been a steady decline in unemployment after in 1933. AND EVEN THEN, as FDR returned to his previous New Deal policies, the unemployment rate resumed its fall, though by 1939 it is all but impossible to separate the reason for unemployment rates from the beginning of the military buildup in preparation for WWII. Blaming FDR for any part of the Depression, other than his failure to continue his initial New Deal policies after 1937, is ideological dogma with only the most paltry evidence to back it up.

            3. Hoover made some mistakes. Raising tariffs was a serious blunder. The Smoot-Hawley Act was loathed by almost everyone EXCEPT...let's see, it DID pass the House with 244 Republican votes and only 20 Democrats, and in the Senate it was 39-5 Republicans who did the job. So if Hoover had turned anti-free-market, which is the way conservatives try to weasel out of responsibility for the Depression, I guess the entire Republican Party had turned as well, less than a year after the 1929 Crash.

            Raising taxes wasn't a great idea, either. To pretend that he was the First Coming of FDR, however, is complete nonsense. Hoover did very little at first after the 1929 Crash, and began to act only after he lost full control of Congress in the 1930 elections. The Crash was already well underway and it only got worse until the country elected a President and Congress which COMMITTED to having the government do something about the economy, instead of having a President who represented a party that kept insisting -- it insists to this day -- that the Depression would end if only government did nothing. As banks failed and a quarter of the country was out of work, for a political party known for its coziness with the very wealthy to insist that it should do nothing was fatal.

            It's easy, today, to pretend it was all an ideological mistake that could have been avoided, but at the time very few felt that way. It's only now, from the comfort of our nicely appointed room in history, that some have the luxury of pretending that they were right all along. The facts are the facts. The Crash of 1929 DID NOT change direction until FDR, a committed statist, took office.

            Collapse
    2. Philip.R.M.Hunt

      This point of yours is well taken: “ The unemployment rate in 1933, when FDR took office, was 25%, up from 9% in 1930. It fell in every year after that until 1938, when FDR's decision to balance the budget and cut many of the programs Jonah rants most about reversed the trend.” The rest was a bit hard to follow and too mean.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Normb1442

        Yeah I got carried away. Sorry if I was too hard to follow. It seemed quite clear to me that Jonah was simply ignoring facts in the service of his ideology.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Michael Harris

      "...Jonah, and the unemployment rate hit 25% on YOUR watch"

      Why yes, Jonah Goldberg is personally responsible for the great depression.

      I find it hilarious that you go on a long disquisition on the word 'great' completely missing the point that the depression was not called the great depression until later.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Normb1442

        Oh stop. Jonah talked about progressives demanding controls on the economy in the 1920s and then instituting them under FDR, as if nothing had happened to cause the country to welcome their doing so. You have to be breathtakingly obtuse not to understand that. Jonah's words were deliberately misleading. My disquisition as you put it on the word great was about 5% of what I was complaining about, and you know that.

        Collapse
  6. R. James

    Ironically enough, given the concern with New Deal militarism, the weightiest argument against the TD's objection to on-shoring or at least near-shoring, is a national security argument. The Russo-Ukrainian War and the potential for a Sino-American War in the near to mid-term require a re-orientation of supply lines and industrial bases that even can remotely be used for a military purpose. We no longer live in the sunny uplands of the 1990s, where we are free to pursue the most theoretically pure economy that we can imagine. There are larger monsters out there than economic waste and unrealized profit. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    Collapse
  7. Rachael.A.Cooksey

    Good information on the strength of the American Economy. However the decline of America narrative has other items to it:
    *Decline of small towns - all the jobs are going to the city
    *Cultural (some would say moral) decline including political parties, conspiracy theories, and free speech issues
    *Institutional Trust

    We need to build more than just the economy we need to build better American community

    Collapse
  8. Pishposh

    I only really have one problem with this article. I hate the term "small government." I think its meaningless. For what its worth I also hate the term big government for the same reason. I think what we should be striving for is efficient, effective government that is properly resourced to meet the mission that the polity, as a result of the democratic process, assigns to it. Such a government is neither necessarily big nor small. This emphasizes the importance of thoughtfully determining the mission and then properly resourcing thereafter.

    Collapse
    1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

      I am on board with this. Small government or big government should not be the goal at all times and in all situations. Figuring out what is needed right here right now and that will change over time and in different situations.

      Collapse
  9. Dougrhon

    Even if I weren't philosophically opposed to government planning, the idea that we can trust the government that exists today to set economic policies strikes me as totally insane. And by today I don't mean the Biden administration (before everyone starts getting all partisan) I mean the entire governing class of the last 40 years.

    Collapse
  10. Rblik

    Anyone suggesting a New Deal with 3.5% unemployment, $32 trillion in debt, and severe inflation is an unserious goofball. I can't think of a worse time for a big gubmint spending spree. The current inflation epidemic has knocked some sense into many of the big spenders and MMT loons, but I guess theres still some holdouts. Even many MAGA. When do they just call themselves "pro-life leftists"?

    Collapse
    1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

      The recent inflation wave has peaked and has receded to under 5%. I wouldn’t characterize that as severe. Point taken about high government spending when we have good growth and low unemployment. Good Keynesian policy is to take away the punch bowl just as the party is getting good - cut spending, raise taxes, tighten money supply to get ready for the next recession. And yes, MMT is looney.

      Collapse
Load More