Hayek Prize

5 responses so far

• 1 JJWFromME // Nov 20, 2009 at 11:38 pm

  A conservative think tank gives an award to someone in a conservative think tank. The conservative movement is a self-licking ice cream cone.

  Jon Chait has the details on Shlaes’ book:
  http://www.tnr.com/article/books/wasting-away-hooverville?page=2

• 2 JJWFromME // Nov 21, 2009 at 12:04 am

  OK Council on Foreign Relations–not conservative. But the conservative movement is still a self-licking ice cream cone.

• 3 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  JJWFromME // Nov 21, 2009 at 12:04 am

  …….The Thomas W. Smith Foundation is a conservative think tank…..one of their “projects” is introducing conservative academics and study groups onto university campuses I seem to remember reading somewhere……Shlaes book was written by a doctrinaire shill (who doesn’t have any economic qualifications) for a conservative audience………conservatives have been writing books trying to damage FDR and the new deal since the thirties…….this has been no more successful than the others and will soon be forgotten like the rest not least because its content has been widely debunked by real economists

• 4 Contrarian_Libertarian // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm

  Just out of curiosity, otto, how exactly has Shlaes’ book been “debunked”? Best I can recall, about the only rebuttal anybody made to the factual assertions in the book was the specific unemployment methodology she relied on (it didn’t count people in ‘make-work’ programs as employed).

  But, for one thing, this is hardly a new fight. For another, that doesn’t really count as ‘debunking’ anything — particularly if you’re somebody who thinks that genuine economic recovery requires genuine gainful employment. If you aren’t, then I suppose we can just eradicate the problem of unemployment for good by enacting statutes requiring the government to “hire” anybody who loses their job.

  Now, I had some stylistic misgivings about the book. I don’t think it was the best written book I’ve ever read. But, in terms of recalling the major issues, figures, and events of the period — particularly ones that have been left out of its “one sentence summation” — I thought it was not only outstanding, but unassailable.

  One can certainly differ with Ms. Shlaes’ conclusions, interpretations, matters of emphasis, etc. But there really isn’t anything to debunk, per se. That suggests that she fabricated facts — which she didn’t.

  Moreover, it’s worth pointing out that a couple “real economists” (UCLA’s Lee Ohanion and Harold Cole) published a study not long ago essentially reaching the same conclusion Shlaes’ book did: that the New Deal didn’t alleviate the Great Depression, it prolonged it (by 7 years, in their estimation).

  If you haven’t read her book, you ought to…if for no other reason than to be introduced to some historical events and facts that might have escaped your understanding of that period in our history.

• 5 WillyP // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  contrarian -
  in talking with otto, you’re talking to a doctrinaire Keynesian. take my word for it.

You must log in to post a comment.