New York Times Denounces Socialism
Sadly, however, it was September 1913 when the paper did this. The editorial was reacting to a platform of Teddy Roosevelt that included an income tax, a central bank, and curbs on competition. The NYT said that the American people are too intelligent and have too much common sense to be deluded by the "shallow sophistries of Roosevelt Socialism."
I actually found this via Elgin Groseclose's wonderful book called America's Money Machine, first published in 1966 and soon to be back in print from the Mises Institute. I had to look it up to believe it. The research on the origin and operations of the Fed is priceless, material not available in any other book.
Comments (13)
jl
As recently as 1917, the NYT even said that "Congress...is the sole war-making power."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D05E3D9143AE433A25754C2A9659C946696D6CF&scp=1&sq=wilson+declare+war&st=p
Published: May 25, 2009 7:42 PM
Sri Hari
The discussion in the financial press about the path to economic nirvana- is it the one paved by the Austrian school of economics or is it the one shown by Keynes?- is increasingly irrelevant !!
The fact of the matter is, the world economy is made up of Austrian & Keynesian models - or to put it simply we work and trade in multi-disciplinary (or model) economies. When one model tries to dominate the system the balance of the world economy as a whole, is lost. And it appears the panacea perhaps is the less dominant economic model!
This happened in 70s, when Keynes was in vogue and later in mid 80s the pendulum swung back to the Austrians represented by Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan. And now we are again talking about Keynes. Perhaps the solution may be, if we can clearly demarcate the economic activity that will function well within each model and not let either of them to dominate the economy as a whole.
Make working of each model transparent and have a system to ascertain accountability and calculability of risk in real time.
Published: May 25, 2009 11:34 PM
danny
Sri Hari
With all due respect, you have much to learn if you believe the 80s was dominated by Austrian thinking, and that Friedman and Greenspan were Austrians.
Keep reading.
Published: May 26, 2009 12:58 AM
Emil Suric
Sri Hari, Milton Friedman was not an Austrian; his rhetoric merely simulated Austrian principles and philosophy. Believing in an all-powerful, all-knowing institution, which operates behind closed doors, in a fog of complete mystery, is completely at odds with the Austrian/libertarian doctrine. Hayek has devoted much time explaining the de-stabilizing effects of the FED's "price stabilization" doctrine; namely that it causes relative drops in the market rate of interest, creating disproportionalities, and eventually crises.
Published: May 26, 2009 12:59 AM
Peter
Apathy is the glove, into which, evil slips its hand....
Complacency and ignorance will only lead to the demise of freedom.... and unfortunately, it's working quite well...
Published: May 26, 2009 1:26 AM
Ball
The CFR was founded in 1921 due to articles like this.
Published: May 26, 2009 1:48 AM
Inquisitor
"This happened in 70s, when Keynes was in vogue and later in mid 80s the pendulum swung back to the Austrians represented by Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan."
Um, neither was an Austrian and neither enacted/proposed policies that were remotely Austrian. Indeed, both were heavily criticised by the Austrians on monetary policy... so...
Published: May 26, 2009 3:55 AM
Adrian Booth
It's also amusing how the New York Times reported in 1931 on Lord Keynes praising the great Herbert Hoover on his attempts to combat the recession.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10616FA395F11738DDDAA0A94DE405B818FF1D3
Published: May 26, 2009 4:40 AM
Alexander S. Peak
"Mr. Roosevelt's doctrine is of no such complexity. It has all the simplicity of theft and much of its impudence."
I guess this proves that The New York Times really was a liberal paper at one time.
And like everyone else, I'm in stark disagreement with Sri Hari's statement calling Milton Friedman and post-Rand Alan Greenspan "Austrians."
It can't even be truly said that Keynesian economics has ever dominated. What has dominated has been whatever is at that time the will of the political class. It takes what it wants with only as much concern for the masses as is required to not inspire the masses to revolt. It uses Keynesian "economics" as its justification, just as it used mercantilist or protectionist "economics" prior. But the true objective has always been the same: power!
The value in Austrian economics is that it is scientific and analytic. It is the "dismal science," and proudly so, because it takes up the role of explaining rationally why statism and slavery are uneconomic (much to the chagrin of Thomas Carlyle).
Yours,
Alex Peak
Published: May 26, 2009 5:23 AM
matt
Sri,
I'll skip berating you on your examples of Austrians and instead ask you to give us an example of the following:
"Perhaps the solution may be, if we can clearly demarcate the economic activity that will function well within each model and not let either of them to dominate the economy as a whole."
I'd love to hear the economic activity that you think works better under a Keynesian model vs. a free market.
Published: May 26, 2009 6:55 AM
Ryan
Sadly, our children are taught how great of a President this man was.
Published: May 26, 2009 1:32 PM
Sri Hari
My comments seem to have elicited strong comments..as suggested by many I have much to learn...I will keep reading
Sri
Published: May 28, 2009 2:03 AM
Sri Hari
As suggested by many readers I read all literature I could get on Mises and Hayek. It was a pod cast by Joseph Solerno that revealed to me that Greenspan was so un-Austrian in controlling money supply. Greenspan and the Fed abdicated the control over money supply stating that it can not be measured!!
I agree with the Austrian view that keeping interest rate artificially low by increased money supply distorts the market and causes capital and labour to be mis-allocated. Inflation at present is masked by productivity increase by imported goods and services. This explains why US cannot stop imported capital goods from China and services from India. The inflation will bring down the edifice.
I was listening and reading too much literature on Keynes and Milton Friedman. Friedman is also not a true Austrian since he did believe in increasing money supply, but not as much as Keynes suggested.
Thank you for the comments, it was quite a ride!!
Published: June 1, 2009 7:40 PM