Books that provide good information. Knowledge arms us all and makes us better equipped for the future.
While I was bouncing around the internet I happened onto an interesting article posted by an author who had written a book on the matter. (Book linked below.)
Since Barack Obama likes to pattern himself after FDR and the New Deal … it caught my attention. I could never understand why people would be happy with a 19% unemployment rate … at least happy enough to re-elect a president over and over.
Were they fed skewed facts?
I have often wondered if women (who were not usually bread winners back then) were counted into these statistics. If we took the % of woman out of that statistic does the percent then rise to 38%? Is that really what we can look forward to under the HOPE PRESIDENT?
Oh wait I know now HOPE means I HOPE none of this drops on my front door.
Hope then was suppose to be just past the horizon or around the next corner?
Sound anything like what passes the lips of Barack Obama almost daily?
Why am I getting the feeling Obama WILL SAY ANYTHING to keep the lid on this powder keg?
Notice this tactic at hand today?
Let’s use an analogy to make the point: Imagine that in the last days of his presidency, George W. Bush declared a new policy. His spokespeople explained, “It is rather misleading to say that the unemployment rate in October 2008 was 6.6 percent, because that implies millions of Americans are destitute. But in fact they are all receiving generous assistance from the government in various forms. If we say that their ‘job’ is filling out the paperwork for unemployment claims, then the true unemployment rate is more like 0.4 percent. Those are the people who truly have no source of income, and need to be helped.”
Would any left-liberal sign on to that rationale? Of course not. Now, there is no objectively hard and fast line between a “real” government-provided job versus a “phony” job such as “filling out unemployment forms.” In fact, a purist could note that all government jobs are artificial and not indicative of true productive value for consumers, since their compensation is derived through involuntary taxation.
This book by Robert P. Murphy can be purchased for around $13 at Amazon.
I love Ann Coulter.
Her latest rant is directed at those who consider waterboarding a war crime.
It is my firm belief that every one of these waterboard protesters would in a hot new york minute waterboard anyone who had information that would save THEIR loved one. If they say they would not?
You can count on one thing THEY LIE!
Its pretty easy to be an idéologue when someone elses ass is on the line and yours or those you care about is not.
Is Henican a hypocrite?
HERE is the Coulter article.
Myths about the Great Depression were once a mere annoyance. Now they have become a source for tyranny. The Bush-Obama response to the meltdown proves that one thing is certain: until we get the history of the 1930s right, liberty will be under threat of those trying to repeat the drama.
Thank goodness Robert Murphy has come along to straighten out the mess in a way that everyone can understand. In this hard-hitting book, we find the most accessible and most truth-telling book about the Great Depression and the New Deal that has ever been written.
Free-market economists have been working for decades to make the record of the calamity clear. This book may just be the magic bullet we’ve been looking for to kill off the myths before they kill us.
He puts together in one easy package the research of hundreds of scholars, showing that it was not capitalism that failed in 1929 but the boom times created by Fed credit expansion. Murphy takes aim at the Chicago School economists and the Keynesians who continued to be in denial on this central point.
A particularly great feature here for Austrians dealing with monetarist myths: Murphy explains that the deflation in the 1930s didn’t have to be somehow devastating. It was not egregious by historical standards, and was fully compatible with economic growth. In fact, the Fed tried but failed to flood the economy with money in the 1930s. Here Murphy provides a very compelling explanation of fractional-reserve banking and its effect on the supply of money.
He further shows that Hoover was not a free-market president. His policies were so statist that he might as well have been a Soviet agent. His biggest critic, who blasted him for his spending and centralization, was none other than FDR. But once FDR came to power, he enacted the longest string of cockamamie, prosperity-killing measures of any president in American history.
The economy still hadn’t recovered going into World War II, a war that didn’t help the economy or get us out of the Great Depression. It prolonged the government-made pain.
Murphy dissects the real history here with facts, analysis, clear prose, suggestions for further reading, fantastic quotations from all the main players, and even when he is discussing complicated data, he never leaves the reader behind.
Murphy concludes his book by recounting what led to the current crash. And wraps it all up with an excellent criticism of Bush-Obama and predicts that their policies will prolong problems.
This book appears as part of Regnery’s “Political Incorrect Guide” series but, in fact, this account is not biased in any particular direction. It is just good history, accurate history, truth-telling history that we have to know to navigate the treacherous waters of today’s economic and political environment.
Capitalists everywhere should have this on their bookshelf and in their briefcase.
(272 pages, paperback, 2009 ISBN: 9781596980969)
A Possible Post Mortum of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
By James E. Egolf, MA
Messers Woods and Gutzman wrote a provocative book that should be read by Americans who actually care about law-and-order plus individual liberties. This reviewer has noticed that the number of Americans who do care is quite small. The book deals “The Dirty Dozen” cases and instances of abuse of government power, and the authors readily admit that this book could have been exponentially larger. This review will not cover all “The Dirty Dozen” examples which would make the review too tedious. However, the general scheme of the book will be examined.
The first example cited in this book dealt with the arbitrary laws that violated First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Free Press (1917-1918). U.S. authorities could make arrests and prosecutions for the most innocent remarks that could have been construed as critical of U.S. intervention into W.W. I. What was worse,the authors cited examples of official tattle tales who reported on neighbors’comments. As an aside, Messers Woods and Gutzman demolish the statement alleged by Pres. Woodrow Wilson who supposedly expressed regret for agreeing to the Declaraion of War. The authors clearly that the statement was fabricated by Wilson’s sycophants who tried to cover Wilson’s blunder. The basic constitutional point made my Messers Woods and Gutzman is that the First Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of Free Speech and Free Press. Yet, power hungry political hacks and unthinking Americans accepted all of this with little protest. One should note that the American people are so poorly read and so ready to believe media accounts that such oppressive laws are no longer necessary. The American media folks have so censored themselves that censorship laws are unnecessary. Too many Americans are too immune to truth and reason to notice.
Messers Woods and Gutzman had a good examination of Pres. Truman’s attempt to seize American steel mills because labor union leaders wanted more than steel executives were willing to give. Truman’s threat was made to curry favor with steel workers and increase wages. The U.S. Supreme Court Justices ruled against the Truman Administration. However, as Messers Woods and Gutzman noted, the ruling was not strong enough. Also they alerted readers that if a President could seize steel mills, he could also seize steel mills or any industry to REDUCE wages.
The chapters dealing with the civil rights cases were carefully researched and clear. The authors show that in an attempt to end discrimination, they only made it worse. School authorities were scolded because of the changing demographics. Civil rights laws which forbade assigning students to schools by race were ignored by federal judges who ordered busing to schools based on race. The consistently flawed federal rulings that changed almost overnight resulted in such confusion that court orders for busing had to end.
The chapter titled The Great Gold Robbery showed an arbitrary U.S. Government whose authorities went after law abiding citizens whose only crime was that they owned gold. This “legal” basis for this decision was that the federal authorities could do this under W.W. I laws about trading with the enemy (Today U.S. defined enemies change as often as one changes shirts). In other words, U.S. citizens who happened to own gold were suddenly enemies. Such arbitrary power needs no further comment.
This reviewer thought the chapter on “The Wall of Separation” was the weakest, but this chapter was still well written. As an aside, this reviewer is not offended if someone has a menorah or a creche on their premises. If Christians wish me a Merry Christmas or Jews wish me Happy Hanukkah, this reviewer is not offended and accepts the statements in the spirit in which such comments are made. If Hindus or Moslems offter greetings, again, such statements are accepted as gestures of good will.
Messers Woods and Gutzman stated that the people in the states should determine public school or any public display of religious symbols. What should have been considered is that some state authorities can use their power to coerce of intimidate those of a different religion. In other words, state authorities can be as oppressive as federal authorities. Too often legal cases reach the courts because, for example, some school official or coach will demean or intimidate anyone who has different religious convictions. However, the chapter has merit because of “overkill” by those opposed to any religious symbols in public places.
The chapter on military conscription was very good. Messers Woods and Gutzman provided substantial research that the Founding Fathers and early National political leaders were opposed to a national military conscription which started in Europe. The quatation of Danial Webster on the floor of Congress rejecting a draft is worth noting. Readers should note that many who want military conscription want it for everyone else except themselves. Walter Lippman promoted military conscription until he realized he too could be conscripted. He managed to get cushy government while exhorting other Americans to risk their lives (a real hero here). The former U.S. House member Andy Jacobs called such cowards, who want wars but want others to do the killing and the dying, war wimps and chicken hawks. Mr. Jacobs was a decorated Marine during the Korean War.
The chapter titled “Do Americans have a Constitutional Duty to Suffer?” is a good example of judicial stupiidty and bureaucratic nonsense. This chapter cites federal attempts to stop people who are suffering from using medical marijuana. The unreasonable judicial rulings stated that home-grown marijuana could be eliminated by the power of the Interstate Commerece Clause of the Constitution. Since the plants were used for immediate medical use per physicians’ prescriptions, the illogic of using the plants could affect interstate commerice is obvious.
The chapters dealing with excutive orders, war powers, and signing statements are ominous. Messers Woods and Gutzman carefully demonstrated that such powers are unconstitutional and lawful. Executive orders began with the administration of the Pres. Theodore Roosevelt when he granted diplomatic recognition to a country when the U.S. Senate refused to do so. Pres. Theodore Roosevelt simply used a different phrase via executive order. The chapter titled “The phony Case for Presidental War Power” offers a stinging rebuke of a law clerk and later government “Justice” Dept. offical name Yoo. Yoo wrote a poorly reasoned law review article which stated that the U.S. President can use his war powers to send combat forces anywhere any time he damned well pleases. The Constitution history and warnings of the Founding Fathers are well cited in this section. The chapter on signing statements would be amusing if not so dangerous. Messers Woods and Gutzman give precise ecamples of how signing statements, which only express a president’s disapproval of a section of a bill, have been recently used to violate the law especially duirng the Clinton and Bush administrations. To use signing statements as pretext to violate the law is unconstitutional and illegal. An opinion is not a constitutional power to break the law.
The last chapter titled “Can Anything Be Done?” is not hopeful at all. When most Americans are concerned about what dress some celebrity is wearing, the abuses of the Constitution will never get corrected. As this reviewer has stated elsewhere, the American people have raised thoughtlessness to a virtue.