Mises and Hayeck [sic] Caused the Crisis
So said Thom Hartmann in an article for the Huffington Post we all laughed at. They've since shut off comments on his article [!]. But here's my full-fledged smash of Hartmann and his views on the financial crisis, taxation, the S&Ls, "deregulation," and the rest.
Comments (18)
dewind
Wow, you really cocked the gun and pulled the trigger point blank at Thom with that article.
Someone who is only vaguely aware of economics (or any subject matter for that matter) is destined to make the post hoc ergo propter hoc mistake. I'm glad you cited this logical fallacy in Thom's reasoning. It happens all to often with mainstream media 'blockheads'.
Published: April 28, 2009 3:30 PM
Barry Loberfeld
Actually, there are more informed voices on the left. New Republican Jonathan Chait
READ THE ENTIRE REVIEW
Published: April 28, 2009 4:07 PM
aaron
Damn Tom. I sorta feel sorry for the guy after reading that. Talk about tearing someone a new one!
Published: April 28, 2009 4:24 PM
Daniel
Thorn is a very sad excuse for a person...
"The Real Boston Tea Party was Against the Wal-Mart of the 1770s"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/the-real-boston-tea-party_b_187189.html
Published: April 28, 2009 4:33 PM
Eric Parks
The good Lord saw fit to combine Henry Hazlitt and H.L. Mencken into one. Thomas Woods rules the day.
Published: April 28, 2009 5:28 PM
Marco Costa
Good job. Sometimes you need to be loud with these kids.
Published: April 28, 2009 7:33 PM
return135
Great response! People like Thom bug me to no end.
Published: April 28, 2009 8:22 PM
Patrick
Daniel: I don't know much about the history surrounding the Boston Tea Party. What is Hartmann wrong about? What actually happened?
ps. great article Tom. Hartmann is not a very precise thinker.
Published: April 28, 2009 11:40 PM
Brian Macker
Pat,
For someone getting picky about what the tea party was about Hartmann got things even more wrong. Sure the tea party was not about "saving money by lowering taxes". Then again it was not a protest against free market corporations like Walmart.
They were actually protesting the collection of taxes via a government sponsored entity, and the use of that money to install and support government officials over which the colonists would have little control. Little control because 1) They weren't voting for them and 2) They were not controlling the purse strings.
It was a protest of the Townshend Duty, a tax.
Rewind to today and the tea party protests are in fact partially about disgust with GSEs, and about taxes that will result from the bailouts and spending.
Of course it is NOT about taxation without representation but I didn't hear anyone shouting that or any signs touting that position at any of the rallies.
Published: April 29, 2009 6:02 AM
J.K. Baltzersen
Great response, Dr. Woods.
Just one little thing:
Now I’m sporting enough to look past the fact that Hartmann makes two spelling errors in a single economist’s name.
Two? I see three.
Published: April 29, 2009 7:12 AM
Deefburger
"Similarly, the philosophy that playing the game of business and investment without rules (the technical term is Laissez-faire Capitalism) has driven our government since the election of Ronald Reagan, and went on steroids during the last two years of the Clinton administration and throughout the Bush administration. It's equally wrong, flawed, and insane, and we're paying a multi-trillion dollar price for it not unlike we are for the war."
That's it. The moron lost me right there.
"Tis better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it (Loudly on the radio and in print), and remove all doubt."
Published: April 29, 2009 10:59 AM
(8?»
While your reply was an interesting read, it was obviously is a wasted "wrestling with pigs" effort.
There is absolutely no way Hartmann has any idea who either Lionel Robbins or Richard Cantillon was. All you did was to give him two more names to smear via character assassination through association with the incoherent like Greenspin.
Published: April 29, 2009 12:37 PM
(8?»
The linear flow of speech "was obviously is" a problem for my non-linear thinking!
Published: April 29, 2009 12:42 PM
s burgess
glad to see the post was shut down guess we won
Published: April 30, 2009 10:48 AM
s burgess
meltdown was great tom been trumpin every arguement.im young from in new zealand so i know lots of hippies.but hey they are turning or turned the logic getting to much for them.hope we ban our central bank b4 you fed
Published: April 30, 2009 11:05 AM
mikey
Look who gets credit for predicting the crisis.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/256589/the_thinkers_who_predicted_early_on_many_aspects_of_this_financial_crisis
Read this and see if you dont want to barf!!!
Published: May 1, 2009 11:44 AM
Zach Bibeault
Holy smokes, I just re-read this. I didn't realize that Hartmann actually said we have had "laissez-faire capitalism" since Reagan (!) and through Clinton's presidency (!!!).
OUCH.
Published: September 5, 2009 9:08 PM
Zach Bibeault
Holy smokes, I just re-read this. I didn't realize that Hartmann actually said we have had "laissez-faire capitalism" since Reagan (!) and through Clinton's presidency (!!!).
OUCH.
Published: September 5, 2009 9:38 PM