Charles K. Rowley and Nathanael Smith, Economic Contractions in the United States: A Failure of Government.
Johan Norberg, Financial Fiasco: How America's Infatuation and Homeownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis.
Nicole Gelinas, After the Fall: From Wall Street — and Washington.
Considering that these books are described as “classical liberal”, and that classical liberal is a propaganda term for Manchester liberalism (resurrected with slight changes as neoliberalism), we would expect these to be works of propaganda, rather than anything serious. (There is no accepted academic definition of “classical liberal” comparable to “classical greek”. Non-libertarians think it refers to liberals of a period, while libertarians exclude many contemporary liberals from that period.)
It’s also amusing to look at the right-wing think-tank publishers of these books.
The Locke Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs
Encounter Books (part of Encounter for Culture and Education)
Cato Institute
None have any academic credibility, and all are recipients of right wing welfare from the usual plutocratic foundations.
From Norberg’s comments at Cato I would highly recommend his book.
To Anonymous Coward,
For Mike Huben’s comments to be an ad hominem you would be having to be arguing that being associated with the Locke Institute, The Center for Culture and Education, and the Cato Institute is something that you would not wish to be associated with.
Mike Huben makes a good point. Democratic governments should maintain a system of zero price rationing, endless printing of paper monies, zero fear of inflation, and assume that everything will be OK. Only the mightiest of corporate backed right wingers would cast doubt on such a state of affairs.
Mike is right. There is nothing to see here of any meaning. Governments should continue to pursue a course of endless debt, higher taxes, more regulation, more forced consumption of high priced assets for the poor, and assume that such a system will last into perpetuity.
As for Mike’s half baked secret history of classical liberalism, it is probably make believe. When you dont have to supply evidence to make a point, then why believe this man?
There are three angry posts about the supposedly specious environment from which these books were spawned and we have yet to receive one cogent critique. One would think that the comments section would be open to what is right or wrong about these books.
I very much enjoying and like the book of Johan Norberg because it contains the topic of financial crisis so i like it more.. I have the Financial Fiasco book but the other two books i dont have so i dont have more idea for that two books but the Financial Fiasco is really a very interesting and the perfect updated book…
I read Norberg’s book and it is really very good indeed. He has covered all the essential points of a complicated story–and contrary to what Mike Huben suggests, while he rightly emphasizes Washington’s culpability, Norberg doesn’t spare the Wall Street “plutocrats” their share of blame. (Then again Huben’s suggestion that the Cato Institute, or any of the mentioned publishers, caters to such plutocrats is perfectly silly.)
To John Thacker,
Oh, what you are saying is that the attack on Huben’s observation is a Twofer: an ad hominem (because only a despicable person would be associated with despicable organizations) and a guilt by association.
Don’t let the power of words stop you from thinking. The point he is making is that in the marketplace of book publishing you would expect a book to be published by a traditional publisher. If I see a book published by some theological seminary, I have a pretty good idea it is not going to be about the Joys of Atheism.
Unless one has actually read any of these books I’m not quite sure what one can that is of use about them.
Bill,
There is no such thing as a “traditional publisher,” especially these days.
If I see a book published by some theological seminary, I have a pretty good idea it is not going to be about the Joys of Atheism.
I’m an atheist, yet I would not be dissuaded from reading such a book just because it was published by a theological seminary. Indeed, I have read many books written by religious scholars both alive and dead who were no doubt published by religious institutions and have found much to argue with, think about, etc.
Well at final count, this discussion has 18 comments and not one pertains to what is said in these books. We have 5 or 6 angry comments charging that these books need to be dismissed because they were written by libertarians. If that is the game we are to play then I guess I shouldnt read any Milton Friedman, Hayek, Stiglitz, Krugman, or Sen because the ideological leanings of all of these men is well known.
Although, if having a ideological point of view excludes someone from having a relevant voice in the debate then I guess Mike Huben is definitely out. After all, Mike Huben has a strong anti-libertarian bent to his work. He maintains an anti libertarianism website and he also faithfully posits that democratic politics is the prime mover of human society. In Mike’s view a world without extreme politics equals no social progress. So sorry Mike, you have to be excluded to.
Mark,
Granting your first paragraph (we don’t know how useful “useful” is, or how many people are in that subset, nor need we care), I think you’re reading something into my comment that isn’t there. I’m not saying that an opponent’s argument has to apply to all cases, and that an argument ought be a trump card to be legitimate. All I was saying was that pointing out a fallacious move doesn’t necessarily divest an argument of its value.
In the very same way, Mike Huben’s comment doesn’t “refute” anything on its own. You’re attempting to find a polarity where there is none.
“Considering that these books are described as “classical liberal” … a propaganda term for Manchester liberalism (resurrected with slight changes as neoliberalism), we would expect these to be works of propaganda, … right-wing think-tank … academic credibility … right wing welfare … usual plutocratic foundations.”
Isn’t “Manchester liberalism” a propaganda term for “hyperindividualist capitalist swinism”? And how does one define and measure “academic credibility” in such a way that it isn’t just “popular” or “accepted” among a particular self-selected group? Are “plutocrats” all “right wing” by definition? Etc.
Tyler, you really need to stop reading and posting so much libertarian propaganda. Think about broadening your perspectives a little, perhaps. I hear there’s some guy named Krugman whose every word is regarded as Truth and academically sound economics, not propaganda, by The Unbiased.
Mathematical approaches to modeling financial crises have emphasized that there is often positive feedback between market participants’ decisions (see strategic complementarity). Positive feedback implies that there may be dramatic changes in asset values in response to small changes in economic fundamentals.
Economists say that a financial asset (stock, for example) exhibits a bubble when its price exceeds the present value of the future income (such as interest or dividends) that would be received by owning it to maturity.If most market participants buy the asset primarily in hopes of selling it later at a higher price, instead of buying it for the income it will generate, this could be evidence that a bubble is present.
Free iPod
The collapse of a global housing bubble, which peaked in the U.S. in 2006, caused the values of securities tied to housing prices to plummet thereafter, damaging financial institutions globally.
Comments on this entry are closed.