Don't you love it when a liberal lapses into candor?
Here's a recent example of this delightful phenomenon, courtesy of Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC this past Wednesday, with New York Times columnist and Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman one of Maddow's guests.
Maddow and Krugman talked about a speech given by Sarah Palin to investors in Hong Kong, and of Krugman's new book, "The Return of Depression Economics," when Maddow asked him this (click here for audio)--
MADDOW: What did the Depression teach economists about how to get out of one or avoid one?
KRUGMAN: Well, it told us a lot about how to avoid one, which is that you really have to, you have to put some constraints. I mean, to put it roughly, banking is very useful but extremely dangerous and banks have to have all kinds of, you know, fencing put around as a protection. They have to have some guarantees so that we don't have bank runs, so people know their money is safe, but then they also have to have regulation so that bankers don't take huge risks with other people's money, on a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose basis. We forgot all of that. A lot, the short line about how we got into this crisis, is we forgot what our grandfathers learned at great expense.
Getting out of, now that we're in the mess, that's much harder. I mean, the last time we got out of it with a world war, which is not something we hope to repeat.
... As opposed to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal getting us out of the Great Depression, which every American has heard from infancy, on a daily basis, for most of the last century.
To paraphrase Krugman, central government planning did end the Depression -- albeit in Berlin and Tokyo, not Washington.
Hearing Krugman's remark, I envision him taking the place of mail carrier Cliff Clavin on the sitcom "Cheers", who upon making a similarly awkward observation would ask his fellow barflies, "Did I say that out loud?" That you did, Professor Krugman, and your students for the moment are most appreciative. Feel free to break from dogma in the future.
Also worth noting is Maddow's characteristic response to Krugman --
MADDOW: But a world war that wasn't as a war useful. It was useful because it was a huge economic outlay by government.
KRUGMAN: That's right. It was an enormous fiscal stimulus.
Got that? World War II was "useful," as Maddow puts it, "because it was a huge economic outlay by government" -- instead of the conflict's arguably more important role in ending the Holocaust and Japanese barbarity in Asia.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Reasons for entering WWII
September 26, 2009 - 21:28 ET by CO2MakerWe entered WWII because we were attacked by Japan, and then Germany declared war on us. Our primary reason wasn't Maddow's "economic stimulus" reason [really, Rachel?] or your own explanation to end the Holocaust and Japanese barbarity in Asia. The Japanese government's propensity to use cruel means was already known early on, and the German concentration camps became known later. But the reason for going to war was retaliation for being attacked, not for fighting our way out of the Depression or for ending the Holocaust and Japanese barbarity.
FDR was itching to get in on
September 26, 2009 - 21:41 ET by Radical1979FDR was itching to get in on WWII. It could have been because word of the Holocaust was getting out, although not always beleived. On the Japanese front, their actions had been provacative for quite a few years prior to Pearl Harbor. Also, the U.S. didn't like the takeover of China that was occuring, leading us towards war.
FDR Trutheriness
September 27, 2009 - 00:20 ET by CO2MakerYep, I heard that. FDR let the attack at Pearl Harbor happen in order to inflame the public so he could easily get a war resolution passed. Where have I heard that logic lately?
Its Only True When.........
September 27, 2009 - 08:33 ET by GeneralAlThat statement is only true when Democrats say that about A Republican President! Democrats would never deceive us into war! They just want everybody to get along and live in peace! [Puke, Puke!!!!!]
How WWII ended the depression
September 27, 2009 - 15:54 ET by Michael GilsonMichael Gilson
It wasn't because of all the spending, it was because Roosevelt and his 'brain trust' got focused on the war enough that they stopped changing the economic rules every 5 minutes! I'm not saying the rules we ended on by default were best but because they stayed consistent people could learn them and make plans accordingly. Without that consistency nobody wants to bet money on a crap game where the shooter uses unmarked dice but 'remembers where the dots are'.
Rachel Maddow's grasp of
September 26, 2009 - 21:37 ET by marvlRachel Maddow's grasp of economics and history are easily outshone by the average pig's grasp of theoretical physics. But, that's good enough for MSNBC. Give the lady a ceegar, and a show.
marvl
September 26, 2009 - 21:42 ET by FeynmanFanThat "average pig" comment is going to hurt Arnold's feelings.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Krugman and Joe Klein
September 26, 2009 - 22:05 ET by AgentAmericanOld liberal hacks who look like mice with short beards creep me out.
Awake the sleeping giant...and that giant is WE THE PEOPLE!
Maddow and Reagan
September 26, 2009 - 22:09 ET by CO2MakerSpeaking of that, I'm struck by the resemblance between Rachel Maddow and Ron Reagan. They look a lot alike, ya know. And as a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen them in the same room. Say, . . . you don't think they're the same . . . nah.
Now that you mention it . . .
September 27, 2009 - 01:38 ET by GalvanicI hadn't noticed the resemblance until you pointed it out, but you're right.
However, I don't think they're one in the same. Maddow is more masculine than Ron Reagan Jr.
You got that right,
September 27, 2009 - 02:37 ET by rockyracoonYou got that right, Galvanic!!!
Re Mice
September 27, 2009 - 09:54 ET by slickwillie2001He does have a kind of rat-boy look doesn't he? Is it those beady eyes? The weak chin?
Silly Newsbusters
September 26, 2009 - 22:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberSilly Newsbusters folks...
There was not such thing as the "holocaust".
Sincerely,
Pat Buchanan
I've heard all my life...
September 27, 2009 - 01:09 ET by Robert17I've heard all my life that WWII ended the depression...but the fact is that it didn't end til 1948. In fact, what ended it was that during the war most, if not all, of the new deal crap ended. It simply wasn't feasible. Wars are not profitable as they destroy assets and require horrible malinvestment. As usual, Krugman has it half right.
The New Deal & WW2
September 27, 2009 - 02:27 ET by GalvanicI don't know when economists consider the Great Depression to have ended, but much of the New Deal remained in tact through the war.
Much of the economic philosophy behind the New Dealers was based on Federal government wartime controls in the First World War. FDR and the New Dealers believed that a government-controlled economy was necessary to pull the US out of depression just as it had pulled the US through the Great War. Therefore, the transition from peacetime to wartime economies was less stressful for the FDR Administration, which was now permitted to expand the national debt to correct (at least temporarily) the most visible symptom of the Great Depression: huge unemployment.
Though the Supreme Court ruled against many NewDeal programs in the Thirties, many survived into the war and beyond.
What the war did was solve the unemployment problem. Depsite signs of recovery after the New Deal began, the New Deal's inherent flaws -- resting on regulatory laws and policies that punished businesses and increased unemployment among black workers -- eliminated the gains since 1933, and sent 1938 unemployment numbers back to 1932 levels.
As FDR prepared for what he believed to an inevitable war, Washington allowed itself to increase deficit spending in order to begin war production and expansion of the armed forces. These factors begin to reduce unemployment, albeit by making the Federal government the principal consumer and billpayer instead of the commercial sector.
The US entry into WW2, spurring massive war production in an economy strictly controlled by Washington, ensured 100% employment because some 10 million or more workers in uniform made the numbers work.
Significant New Deal programs that have survived over the decades include . . . .
Social Security
agricultural subsidies and price controls
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
the National Labor Relations Act, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
I have also heard all of my
September 27, 2009 - 11:55 ET by JerI have also heard all of my life that it was the full mobilization associated with the requirements of a wartime economy which ulltimately pulled the nation out of the grips of the Great Depression. I'm not sure where Jack came up with the notion that "every American since infancy has been told FDR" [and New Deal policies] had already ended it.
Jer
Say What?
September 27, 2009 - 02:10 ET by ptsonSo much for the liberal anthem: War (huh) what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again!
Children have replaced it with: Umm, Umm, Umm,
Barack Insane Obama
The Republicans should have the tune for 2010 AND 2012!! How can a children's song be racist? I have faith in the media and they will find a way to make it so. Oh Krugman? Not worth the time!
Elitism
September 27, 2009 - 05:44 ET by charlietexasWhat is it about the elitism up there in NY? Is it any wonder that no one is watching Maddow? So let me get this straight, If FDR's programs had worked, we wouldn't have had to go to war? Japan and Germany would have backed off? So they did us a favor by attacking us and getting us into the war? You know that is another topic that the elites have argued about for years, that FDR stuck it to the Japs with an oil embargo to get them pissed off enough to attack us thus drawing us into war.
Geez! Just when you think
September 27, 2009 - 06:34 ET by Indiana JoeGeez! Just when you think there's actually a kernel of sanity left on the Left, Maddow has to go and ruin it!
"MADDOW: But a world war that wasn't as a war useful. It was useful because it was a huge economic outlay by government."
"Wasn't as a war useful?" You mean, "useful" as in stopping some madmen from completely subjegating the whole world? "Useful" as in freeing millions of people from persecution, totalitarianism, torture and death?? Not "useful???" Maddow, you blithering fool!
And Krugman, having actually made sense for the first time in years, goes right along with it!
Well, for an instant there, things were looking up.
"Four legs good... two legs better!" - George Orwell
Is Krugman realizing he's been all wrong on Keynisian economics?
September 27, 2009 - 09:08 ET by WorriedGee, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but anyone seeing the grotesque spending being done by irresponsible politicians knows it's not how you get out of a recession or Obama depression.
Maddow is relegated to working for MSOBAMA and she ain't the sharpest tool in the shed either.
LIES
September 27, 2009 - 11:33 ET by ACLUSUXJobless Recovery = Oxymoron
World War II and the Depression
September 27, 2009 - 15:34 ET by AvitarWorld War II was useful economically because it got FDR out of the drive's seat and Gen. Marshal into it. <br>
It is hard to make clear how much improved the war production board was over the mismanagement of the New Deal personnel. Even the Carter to Reagan change was not so great because Reagan was stuck with so many of Carter's idiot laws and congressmen. Marshal could at least temporarily get laws suspended.
Terminal
September 27, 2009 - 16:04 ET by justbob223These people continually demonstrate the truth that, while ignorance may be cured with information and education, stupidity is a terminal condition for which there is no remedy.
No recovery without lending from sleeping banks
September 27, 2009 - 16:31 ET by snaggletoothieThe banks have not become serious about lending yet. And why should they take that risk when Obama has made it clear that he's got their backs? So we cannot truly have a recovery until both Obama and the spirit of Obama are gone from Washington.
Only Part Of The Story
September 27, 2009 - 19:08 ET by Wildcatter1980The rest of the point--which Krugman conveniently overlooked--was that the gather storm of WWII forced FDR to back away from his big government, big spending ways. FDR knew the country could not afford to continue down that path of destruction (my POV) while simultaneously preparing for the coming war.
--
We need to stop calling them "Progressives" when in reality they are big government "Socialists" who no longer value the individual's rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Yes...
September 27, 2009 - 19:59 ET by Robert17..the recession started with the crash in 1929. The government then turned it into a depression that lasted all of the 1930s. We didn't enter the war until almost 1942. Everyone should read The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. She debunks most of the FDR myth.
You're not suggesting the
September 27, 2009 - 20:54 ET by JerYou're not suggesting the economic calamity battering the very financial underpinnings of the country during the Hoover administratrion was a garden-variety recession transformed into a Depression by FDR's New Deal, are you?
Jer
No. He is recognizing that
September 27, 2009 - 21:01 ET by NL207No. He is recognizing that the Boy Wonder from California was also a statist with big government ideas. FDR differed from Hoover only in the scale of his statist "solution".