Why is the Recession Taking So Long to End?

There is a solution that requires draconian austerity, but our political leaders do not have the guts to do what is necessary and most of the populace does not have the skills and will to survive on their own accord. Both parties and most citizens are to blame. We have met the enemy and he are us.

Concur 100%. The main question in my mind is how long we can go sweeping the dirt under the rug. Rather than solve the problem, the Pols will keep on trying to hide the mess. It will get very ugly before they give up.

Regime Uncertainty. Robert Higgs has explained this very well. If more economists understood this there would be a lot fewer "unexpected" developments.

Very interesting . . .
That article points out that part of the problem of regime uncertainty which arose in the course of the FDR maladministration was the loss of conservatism in SCOTUS. I have thought a lot about the possibility of stabilizing SCOTUS by constitutional amendment. It seems to me that the selection of justices should be regularized instead of being sporadic, and continuance in office should be subject to at least some reasonable check. If we have arrived at a state of medical technology which can assure longevity but cannot prevent dementia, for example, life tenure is problematic. It seems to me that the Senate as constituted of elected representatives of the people of the states (rather than of the state governments, as originally) is ill suited to protect states' rights by screening justices and, as necessary, convicting them of impeachment. At the same time, communication among the states is radically easier now than in the founding era. So it would be thinkable now to assign some of the authority currently vested in senators to governors.
And since SCOTUS justices have undeniable political effects and their nominations are thus political decisions, it would seem that each election of a president should have the same effect on SCOTUS as any other. My idea would be to have each presidential candidate name a short list of picks from which his SCOTUS nominees would have to come. And since the electorate would be ratifying those picks along with the presidential/VP ticket they elected, there would be no need to have them ratified by the Senate.
I would amend the Constitution to fix the number of justices on SCOTUS at 11, and automatically install 2 new justices along with each presidential inauguration. That would imply that, absent deaths or impeachments, 2 justices would have to come off the bench after 22 years' service. But instead of having justices automatically rotate off after 22 years, maybe the state governors should vote two justices "off the island" every four years. That could have an invigorating effect on justices' respect for states' rights!
Have you read
The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas Fleming

The book, like your article, gives detail about the history of the FDR Administration which you don't get from socialist sources such as "objective" journalism.

It is because of the Great Amish Conspiracy. They are counting on taking over the country with all the money they are going to make selling us buggies and horses, not to mention the really cool hats.

Surrender immediately, we can not win... all is lost.

Our country can not be lead out of this mess without a REAL leader, one that loves America, it’s history and want’s her to succeed. Obama is none of that... he is only a traitor.

I’m surprised that there has not been a greater attack on Obama’s fascism through the courts. This was the main avenue
used to slow FDR’s headlong rush to dictatorship. It was effective enough that he threatened to add justices to fabricate
a favorable SCOTUS majority.

I’ve been keeping a file of ideas for Constitutional fixes that have suggested themselves as necessary additions to thwart avenues to tyranny the Framers didn’t adequately cover. Your notion of modifying SCOTUS appointments is something I’ll give some thought to. Maybe I’ll get around to a book.

Amity Shlaes’ book on FDR got all the press but Folsum’s “New Deal or Raw Deal” along with Fleming and especially Higgs showed that FDR was no more effective at ending the Great Depression than Obama will be at ending the Greater Depression.

You’re not wrong.

I think of it this way:

The Right sometimes gets it wrong when it sees a need and says, “Okay, just this once, we’ll hand out a cookie to everyone to help them get over this hump.”

The main way this goes wrong is it then leaves the situation open for the Left to come in, take the limited cookie policy, and DELIBERATELY decide, “Now that people have had one cookie from the government, this is the perfect time to get them dependent upon us by giving them ice cream, cake and hotdogs, too.”

IOW, the Right often deludes itself as to the dangers of that “one drink” for a potential alcoholic and the Left purposefully exploits the alcoholic by plying it constantly with drinks just as soon as anyone has fallen off the bandwagon.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.