Replies

FIrst, you completely miss the "vicinities" effects. I don't care what the ACTUAL trade numbers were, trade affects everything. If prices on, say, zinc, went up dramatically, even if we only import .05 percent of our trade in zinc, it would DRAMATICALLY cause ALL auto and computer and other costs to rise.

Amazing that you would cite Heinz, whose Harvard degree is no better than Bush's, but disregard established economists who have actually done research in the field. And NO, you can't get what you "need to know" from a "google" search. That is purely moronic.

And no, it doesn't matter WHEN the final vote was, the Hawley Smoot deal was "done" the day before the crash. Obviously you have memory loss, or you would know that the CLINTON impeachment was "done" the day it was voted out of the judiciary, because you don't vote those things OUT unless they are going to pass. Likewise, the impeachment was DEAD the minute the Senate adopted its "rules." But guess what? The final "vote" wasn't for weeks.

But hey, live in your dream world. There aren't a handful of economists alive today who don't think that HS was a MAJOR contributor to the Great Depression, but even without it, your stupid argument is childish: every piece of evidence we have shows that FDR's abominable New Deal policies EXTENDED and DEEPENED the Depression. There is plenty of research on Glass Steagall (terrible); Minimum Wage Laws (drove millions out of work, right in the pit of the depression); FDR's hideous tax laws that ensured there would be no recovery; his pathetic spending programs, building opera houses when Americans couldn't even afford to go to movies.

The Dems and FDR in particular engaged in a war against the middle class and the poor, and framed it in rhetoric of hatred of the rich. But Hawley Smoot and the Fed started it all, so I can't blame him for that. (Notice, by the way, the EUROPEANS' response to HS was to enact barriers, so no more overseas trade.)

FIrst, you completely miss the "vicinities" effects. I don't care what the ACTUAL trade numbers were, trade affects everything. If prices on, say, zinc, went up dramatically, even if we only import .05 percent of our trade in zinc, it would DRAMATICALLY cause ALL auto and computer and other costs to rise.

Complete utter nonsense that ingores one of the most fundamental principles of market economics: price is determined by supply and demand in the marketplace. More often than not, a minor increase in the cost of one of many raw materials utilized is merely absorbed by the producer. It certainly isn't amplified to reverberate throughout the economy, that's absurd.

Amazing that you would cite Heinz, whose Harvard degree is no better than Bush's,

Actually, Heinz received his Harvad MBA in 1963, prior to the ascendency of liberalism in our nation's universities during the Vietnam War era of the late '60s and early '70s. Dubya received his Harvard MBA in 1975, when the corrupting liberal influence in academia was already established. Heinz's Harvad MBA IS more credible than Dubya's.

Furthermore, I'd say it likely that Senator Heinz was by far the more accomplished student. Dubya, by his own admission, was somewhat of a "party animal" during his college days. He really didn't take much seriously until later in life.