Amar Bhide, WSJ Edit Page, Embrace Regular Recurrence of Massive Recessions
In 1929, a recession began that lasted 43 months followed by several years of recovery and then a new 13 month recession in 1937-38. Collectively, that period is known as the “Great Depression.” Between the end of that episode and the beginning of our current troubles, the National Bureau of Economic Research has identified eleven additional recessions, the longest of which (in the mid-seventies and in the early-eighties) lasted 16 months each. NBER doesn’t have data for the first half of the nineteenth century, but in the second half of the nineteenth century there were eleven recessions of which fully seven were longer-lasting than any of our post-Depression recessions.
In other words—bad times:
But something about the current political situation appears to have driven a swathe of the right completely insane.* Thus we get Amar Bhide writing things about how “The depressions and panics of the 19th century ended without any fiscal stimulus to speak of” so there’s no reason to waste our time with “John Maynard Keynes’s speculative conjecture about human nature.”
Now to be clear, it’s not the case that Keynesian theory says that absent government intervention a depression will never end. Rather, Keynesian theory says that absent intervention recessions will be long and everything will be terrible while admitting that they eventually end. This is the part where the thing about how in the long run we’ll all be dead creeps into the picture. Eventually, the recession will end even if we don’t do anything, but this is no comfort to actual people trying to live finite human lives on the planet earth.
Note in particular the so-called “Long Depression” set off by the Panic of 1873. This was a five year, two month recession followed by a 34 month expansion followed by a new 38 month contraction. In other words, we had an eleven plus year span during which the economy was contracting over 75 percent of the time. That’s no good. And in addition to the direct economic harms of that sort of thing, you can have some very nasty political consequences in these situations. But that’s the world of passivity in the face of economic calamity.
* I mean it. How hard would it be for a conservative- or libertarian-inclined economist to just say “the idea of a fiscal stimulus makes some sense, insofar as it’s attempted my preference would be to work as much as possible through tax side measures lest a ‘temporary’ stimulus become a permanent expansion in the size of government”? That’s totally coherent. Instead we’re getting nutty resurrections of the Treasury View, people downplaying the catastrophic nature of the 19th century business cycle, Alan Reynolds, bizarre revisionism about the New Deal, etc.
92 Responses to “Amar Bhide, WSJ Edit Page, Embrace Regular Recurrence of Massive Recessions”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 18th, 2009 at 11:47 am
FDR at one point said he wanted to end the cycles of “boom and bust”, which is what I think you are referring to. He didn’t end them, but he made the busts much less severe.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
What can I say…they wish to create their own reality?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Hugh is quite correct. Certain financial restructurings FDR put in place, those which the GOP has never managed to undo, have ameliorated the severity of downturns ever since. Imagine what the 70s/80s recessions might have been like without unemployment insurance, social security and a whole range of programs. In fact, Judis & Teixeira, in The Emerging Democratic Majority, argue that the reason the country took so long to realign GOP (from ‘68 to ‘80), and why the shift back to Democrats took from ‘92 to ‘08, was because the shock of deep economic turndown which normally cracked coalitions was absent due to FDR’s work.
The reason this recession looks so much worse than anything since the 30s would appear to be because of the “loosening” of regulation and the reversal of Rooseveltian reforms. We’r just lucky the GOP didn’t get any farther than they did.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Think of it as a bargaining tactic. You start with a position you know is indefensible so you can then modify it and seem like the voice fo reason just by going to your actual position. The Democrats should take a page from the Republicans here. Their extreme elements (the ones that still have access to mainstream media though) ought to be saying that Republicans caused our economic bad times, so we need to kill them all. Then “more moderate” elements of the Democrat party can seem wise and willing to compromise by presenting the possibility that, instead of killing all the Republicans, perhaps simply locking them up in jail and dissolving them as a political party would suffice.
That’s reasonable, right? Right?
But it’s basically what the Republicans would be doing if the Democrats had screwed things up as badly as the Republicans have.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
jmitzman, now you’re getting somewhere!
more seriously, fires end on their own at some point too: presumably the nutcases populating the right think we’d be better off letting them burn rather then expending resources to have a fire department.
i mean, it was one of the great breakthroughs of the twentieth century that we realized that we were not obligated to go through lengthy periods of wealth destruction and household financial distress, that there were policy alternatives.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Franklin Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, in an address to Congressional Democrats in May of 1939:
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!”
February 18th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I knew bitching endlessly about 1873 (and 1837 and the 1780’s) would pay off eventual. Heh.
In other words, we had an eleven plus year span during which the economy was contracting over 75 percent of the time.
Or, we had a 23 year and 8 month period (October 1873 to June 1897) wherein we had 161 of contraction and 123 months of expansion, or the the economy was in contraction 63% of the time. (The entire period tends to fit together pretty well, as the period of post-war R dominance, which was followed the period of Progressive R dominance.)
How hard would it be for a conservative- or libertarian-inclined economist to just say “the idea of a fiscal stimulus makes some sense, insofar as it’s attempted my preference would be to work as much as possible through tax side measures lest a ‘temporary’ stimulus become a permanent expansion in the size of government”?
How hard would it be to say that they wanted to deal with it like WWII, a brief period of massive government followed by shrinkage. Too hard, apparently.
Now, if you were slick, you could point out that the post-Civil War period was a period of small government and high tariffs and that that was contractionary. BUT, it did result in the massive growth in manufacturing that, in turn, led to the Allies winning WWI, which resulted in more massive growth in manufacturing that lead to the 20’s and the Great Depression and then WWII and the post-war prosperity. The slick part is where one points out that the Japanese also have a de facto tariff policy (with the not quite so small government, but definately a corporate controlled government, much like Singapore), and they in turn have also had the two decades of contraction.
So, the question is, is how do you develop an effective substitute for the old skool R policy of tariffs and small government (or the Japanese version, wherein they win the trade war and lose the home front), since the people will not stand for having an ongoing contraction 2/3rds of the time? (The people do stand for it in Japan, sorta. We aren’t the Japanese, who tend to be culturally passive.)
max
['Dum dee dee.']
February 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
The credit cycle and thus the business cycle is overwhelmingly the result of monetary conditions. Fiscal inputs have very little to do with it. They fetishize the fiscal because that is where their cultural battles lie but the fiscal is mostly irrelevant to broad macro economic cycles. Unless or until the Treasury goes broke that is. Which is what is happening now.
You’ll note there was precious little if any WSJ editorial page space devoted to the monetary and credit insanity of the last 25 or so years. You don’t have to wonder why. That was in the interests of WSJ editors. Now that it isn’t they bring out the fiscal argument to muddy the waters.
That said the fiscal crisis of ever government on earth is a huge deal. They all acted as if the bubbles would never end. There is no sense argueing with the likes of Bidhe because he will always change the subject.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“Morgenthau believed in balanced budgets, stable currency, reduction of the national debt, and the need for more private investment.”
Also from Wikipedia!
February 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
it’s alright ‘cos the historical pattern has shown
how the economical cycle tends to revolve
in a round of decades three stages stand out in a loop
a slump and war then peel back to square one and back for more
bigger slump and bigger wars and a smaller recovery
huger slump and greater wars and a shallower recovery
you see the recovery always comes ’round again
there’s nothing to worry for things will look after themselves
it’s alright recovery always comes ’round again
there’s nothing to worry if things can only get better
there’s only millions that lose their jobs and homes and sometimes accents
there’s only millions that die in their bloody wars, it’s alright
it’s only their lives and the lives of their next of kin that they are losing
dum dee dum dee dum…
February 18th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
@jmitzman: “You start with a position you know is indefensible so you can then modify it and seem like the voice fo reason just by going to your actual position.”
Yep, a slight variation on the Overton Window. Republicans have had this mastered for decades and Democrats still haven’t figured it out, which is why we keep trudging ever rightward in our national policies.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
The critical fact you left out, though, was that Morganthau was wrong. After eight years under FDR, unemployment declined from 25% to about 14%. That was actually accomplished in just 4 years, but then they stopped spending for a bit.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
How hard would it be for a…libertarian-inclined economist to just say “the idea of a fiscal stimulus makes some sense, insofar as it’s attempted my preference would be to work as much as possible through tax side measures lest a ‘temporary’ stimulus become a permanent expansion in the size of government”?
You mean, the sort of thing Tyler Cowen and just about every other libertarian has been saying for months?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“Finite human lives on the planet earth” is the part so many people never think about.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Matt’s post is of course the usual interpretation put on Keynes’ famous statement
The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.
Even though he wrote in A Tract on Monetary Reform in 1923 (regarding the playing out of inflation, which Keynes’ Classical peers said would resolve itself soon enough) and not during or about the Depression.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Better would be
Matt’s post is of course the usual interpretation put on Keynes’ famous statement
The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.
even though he wrote those words in A Tract on Monetary Reform in 1923 (regarding the playing out of inflation, which Keynes’ Classical peers said would resolve itself soon enough) and not during or about the Depression.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
bdbd, I’m assuming what you say is correct but I’m not sure how that invalidates the point.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
The economy of the 1800s is full of surprises and unexpected politics. There’s plenty about America life we take for granted, like corporations, that scarcely existed earlier in our history.
The best book about that time I’ve read is The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-1916, but it will kick you ass. I dare you to read it.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Real GDP expanded at an annual rate of 4.2% between 1857 and 1899. Prices fell at a rate of about 0.4% per year. From 1900 to 2007, real GDP has expanded at about 3.2% and prices have risen at about 3%. Since 1945 real GDP has increased at about 3% and prices have risen at about 4%.
In other words, you pick your poison. Long term growth seems to be on the side of non-intervention, while short term fluctuation is on the side of interventionism. This is really a political issue, and not one that can be discarded as easily answered.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I really like Matt’s post because of the graph.
You get the sense from libertarians that if the mean old government would just get out of the way we’d have smooth-running economy in equilibrium and everything would be awesome all the time. But there has never been a time when that was true.
Actually, some libertarian types do talk about boom and bust cycles, but they think of 20% unemployment as the worthwhile cost for the inevitable Schumpeterian triumph. You know, you gotta break some eggs …
February 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Classical economics posited that the economy would recover from a downturn and return to near-full employment.
Keynes then came along and said, no, the economy can settle into equilibrium at less than near-full employment – that near-full employment is a special case.
That is the reason he titled his book “The GENERAL Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Apples and oranges. In the earlier period the US was a developing economy, somewhat like China today.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
The reason that Morgenthau quote has traveled so well – and I see it everywhere – is that it’s impossible to say the New Deal didn’t work if you look at the data. Quoting Morgenthau allows you to ignore the data that proves him wrong.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I understand the classical position: the market, left alone, will allocate scarce resources most efficiently over time. And it’s not just that government intervention/spending increases (temporarily or permanently) the size of government; it makes for a less efficient allocation of resurces no matter how well intentioned. Indeed, one may look no further than the housing crisis: government spending (on such things as highways to the suburbs) and government tax policy (tax deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes) encouraged overbuilding and sprawl, ultimately ending in the collapse of housing prices and vast areas of developed but uninhabited suburbs. So while it’s true that government intervention/spending created prosperity at least for a time, it ended very badly.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
The very best quote from Keynes:
“The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and income.”
February 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
@hugh — I’m not trying to invalidate Matt’s point, I’m just trying to add some high quality window dressing and context for it. Perhaps you are misinterpreting my “of course” which may have been inartful and confusing.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Steve LaBonne said
Apples and oranges. In the earlier period the US was a developing economy, somewhat like China today.
Great. So why are we comparing them in the first place? I thought that was the point of this thread, or was Matthew not comparing business cycles pre 1900 and post 1900?
February 18th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Is there supposed to be a point to this remark? Unlike you, Matt Y. was not trying to compare longterm growth rates as between economies in very different stages of development. He was simply making the (correct) point that historically recessions have sometimes been really long, and that’s something one might want to think about when deciding whether to take action to try to shorten this one. Furthermore, you still have offered no valid grounds for supposing that such action would have suppressed longterm growth rates in the 19th C.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
bdbd – Indeed I was! Apologies.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
OK. Here is what you are saying. Pre-1900 we were a developing economy, so you cannot compare growth rates because post 1900 we have been a more stable, developed economy. On the other hand, you can compare depth of recessions in a developing economy versus a developed economy. Basically, your assertion is that the level of development affects only growth and not the depth and length of downturns. This is silly and refuted by all evidence we have about the current depth of recessions in developing versus developed nations. Theirs are longer and deeper. So what is Matt Y’s point? You want to use level of development for analyzing growth but not for analyzing downturns? Basically, you want to have your cake and eat it.
The better way to look at this is that there are definite trade offs between using and non using counter cyclical policy. The benefits are just as Matt said, that recessions will tend to shorten, and some will be avoided altogether. The negative is that such policy requires high rates of taxation which has both deadweight effects, and also decreases overall private investment. That is one of the main reasons you see lower, steadier growth in economies using counter cyclical measures than you do in those which do not. Trade offs are the name of the game, not absolutist statements which offer nothing of value.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
You’re still babbling around in circles but giving no valid grounds for supposing that
You also now assert, again without any data, that developing economies are somehow immune to long, deep recessions (AFTER having seen from the 19th century US example that this claim is quite definitively NOT TRUE.)
I shall now commence ignoring you since you clearly have no idea whatsoever what an actual argument, as opposed to mere repetition of a totally unsupported assertion, would entail.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
You also now assert, again without any data, that developing economies are somehow immune to long, deep recessions (AFTER having seen from the 19th century US example that this claim is quite definitively NOT TRUE.)
I now assert that you are not a very skilled reader.
My assertion was that developing economies will always have longer and deeper recessions, and that counter cyclical measures in any stage of economic development, will tend to shorten and shallow recessions, but that they do so at the expense of overall growth due to the deadweight losses which are incurred by the taxation necessary to fund such measures. I don’t intend to say which choice is, in my opinion, correct, just that it is a choice with actual trade offs.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
How hard would it be for a conservative- or libertarian-inclined economist to just say “the idea of a fiscal stimulus makes some sense, insofar as it’s attempted my preference would be to work as much as possible through tax side measures lest a ‘temporary’ stimulus become a permanent expansion in the size of government”? That’s totally coherent.
Yes, but it doesn’t lead where Republicans want to go. It leads into a discussion of multipliers and marginal propensities to consume and before you know it you’re giving a payroll tax holiday and you haven’t abolished the capital gains tax at *all*. That won’t get you invited to the right lobster dinners.
So a right-leaning economist could say this (and some have), but the Republican Party won’t pick it up because the guys who sign the checks at Heritage and AEI aren’t impressed by tax relief for the working and middle classes.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“How hard would it be for a conservative- or libertarian-inclined economist to just say “the idea of a fiscal stimulus makes some sense, insofar as it’s attempted my preference would be to work as much as possible through tax side measures lest a ‘temporary’ stimulus become a permanent expansion in the size of government”?”
Isn’t that essentially what Bruce Bartlett, for example, has said?
February 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Rather, Keynesian theory says that absent intervention recessions will be long and everything will be terrible while admitting that they eventually end.
Well sorry to be a downer but the Great Depression ended only because of WWII. We don’t know what would have happened had WWII not happened. (Also as Krugman pointed out, Japan’s lost decade ended only because the wider global economy pulled them out of it. Who will do the pulling if we need it? A booming alien economy?)
Maybe a serious global slump will eventually lead to war (and an end to slump) because the ruling classes of various nations will eventually start pointing fingers and deflecting anger, but we don’t know this for sure.
Still I believe Obama and his propellerheads will pull us out in spite of the Repulbicans, b/c Obama said he will keep doing things until we are out of the woods – which I don’t think Krugman has responded to – and because Petey is always 100% wrong and he’s been so down on Obama that I’m convinced Obama will be the greatest US President to date, and he can’t do that in one term.
(oh and I still have conservatives telling me it’s the Community Reinvestment Act’s fault, i.e. government forcing banks to make bad loans, which I find insane and Blagovian in its level of denial.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Real per capita
gdp growth
1800-1850…0.7%
1850-1950…1.4%
1950-2008…2.1%
when you compare the 1850-1950 era the biggest difference is the bottom of the range has been eliminated in the post-1950 era. I.e., growth is much more stable and you do not have the big negative numbers after 1950 that you had prior to 1950.
The big difference is the role of government in dampening the cycle.
According to the NBER from 1954 to 1919 the average cycle was 44 months — 20 months in a recession and 24 in an expansion.
So the economy was in a recession almost half the time.
From 1950 to 1982 the norm was the economy was in a recession
about 12 months out of every 48 or about 25% of the time.
Since the early 1980s we have had the great moderation and the time the economy was in a recession fell to about 12.5% of the time.
One of the difference was the creation of the Fed and its learning how to manage the economy so that after 1950 the Fed did a much better job of managing monetary policy than the private sector did prior to the creation of the Fed. This was also complimented by the increased stability to the cycle generated by government counter-cyclical policies.
So the evidence is overwhelming that the modern mixed economy has performed much better than the old small government economy of 1850 to 1930.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
You should use the per capita data to compare eras rather than the gross numbers cited earlier. The gross numbers cited earlier were stronger because of stronger population growth, not because of superior economic performance.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Keynsian stimulus may make sense, but only if the citizenry can trust the government to spend money fairly. At the moment that trust is lacking for a significant portion of the public, and 1100-page bills railroaded through Congress with minimal examination do not build trust.
Nor is it helpful for you to question the sanity of your ideological opponents. At the end of that slippery slope lies blood in the streets and people hanging from lampposts.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
You should use the per capita data to compare eras rather than the gross numbers cited earlier. The gross numbers cited earlier were stronger because of stronger population growth, not because of superior economic performance.
The math isn’t actually that simple. An increase in poor immigrants necessarily depresses per capita GDP, and by a large number when it is constant. The best numbers to use are per capita for people living in the country for x-number of years, but those don’t really exist. If you think about it, if you get 20% more people each year, it will both increase growth, and decrease per capita growth because you increase the numerator through additional labor inputs, but increase the denominator with masses of low income people.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:31 am
A few historical points:
1. Henry Morgenthau was a giant tool, and the worst of FDR’s appointments. This was the man who urged the balanced budgets of 1937 that kicked off a recession and then proclaimed the resulting recession to be the proof that deficit spending doesn’t work. This was also the man who stabbed the Administration in the back and said that domestic and agricultural workers (read: the majority of African-American workers) should be excluded from Social Security, when the White House draft included them. Taking his word for anything is ill-advised.
2. I would not necessarily have a problem with saying that there is possibly a tradeoff between the manic/depressive cycles of the pre-New Deal economy and the more medicated cycles of the post-New Deal cycle. As an empirical question, I’m somewhat skeptical as to how even the tradeoff is when you compare the lost production and increased misery of busts to the deadweight of medicated economies.
However, as a political matter, I’d say that a progressive should prefer the latter. Given the large differentials in class power prior to the New Deal, it’s fair to say that the rich tended to absorb the bounty of the good years and the poor the misery of the bad years disproportionally (although this was not constant over time; there were periods when skilled workers did have the upper hand and were able to increase the wage/profit ratio). A more medicated economy provides less overall growth, but that growth is shared more equally, and all share in an important non-economic bonus – freedom from fear of want, to mangle a phrase.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Well, obviously we are expecting the government to stimulate some particular activity, otherwise we would not all be investing in Treasuries.
But, given that stimulating something is getting mixed up with stimulating everything, we need another two years to start to address the real problem.
Let me sort of repeat the short history of this bubble. It is moving into sectors which contain a bottleneck that can be solved by technology. It has moved into the government sector. The current bottle neck to economic recovery is some resource that government controls and it is managed very poorly.
Like a detective puzzle, we need years to sift through the bubble hysteria so we can get clarity about what the problem is, exactly.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:05 am
I have to agree with Matt (not Yglesias) that Steven LaBonne is using an inconsistent argument.
If you are going to credit government intervention with the more stable economic growth of 1946-present (compared to 1850-1900), I don’t see how you can simply ignore the possibility that the higher overall growth rate from 1850 to 1900 was due to the relative lack of intervention. Alternately, if you are going to credit the higher growth rates of 1850-1900 to the fact that the U.S. was a “developing country” (as if this fact exists independently and causes growht idependently of other factors), I don’t see how you can discount the possibility that this, and not the lack of government intervention, is the reason for the relative economic instability.
Put another way, Steven LaBonne wants to have it both ways.
Also, I don’t know that America as a developing country is comparable to China, as America’s development, along with Europe’s, was done much more “from scratch” than China’s. Being a developing country in an environment where there are already economically well-developed countries is far different from being so in an environment where you are one of hte countries at the pinnacle of current progress.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:32 am
When it comes to “people downplaying the catastrophic nature of the 19th century business cycle, Alan Reynolds,” that is not my data. The statistics are from CEA Chair Christina Romer.
Romer showed that recessions from 1887 to 1929 averaged 10.3 months and only one was as long as 16 months. Postwar recessions also averaged 10.4 months and two (so far) lasted 16 months. Yet they had no concept of “fiscal stimulus” from 1887 to 1929, and no Fed before 1913.
The burden is not on me or Christina Romer to explain why the Fed and fiscal nostrums did not shorten recessions.
The claim that there was a continuous 65-month contraction from 1873 to 1879 was challenged in The Monetary History of the U.S. by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz. Because prices were generally falling, previous economists confused the drop in nominal income with a drop in real income. The National Bureau never goes back and corrects such mistakes, unfortunately. Romer began her study with 1887, but I believe she agrees with the Fridman-Shwartz critique of earlier data.
As for “bizarre revisionism” about the Great Depression, I tackled that topic in 1979 with a lot of hard numbers. To my knowledge, nobody has ever challenged the facts. Consider that an invitation to prove me wrong about the data. Otherwise, stop dismissing controversy as bizarre.
If the facts from Romer or Reynolds seem too inconvenient, it still will not suffice to cling to antiquated, untested 1960s theories. Puruse the January 2009 American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics and you’ll have a tough time finding any support for orthodox Keynesian theory or policy.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Ah,
No surer sign that your are making a good argument than the arrival of hired flakes from CATO (or AEI, etc.), showing abundant evidence published in no less an authority than the National Review that all commonly accepted and verifiable historical facts are, in reality, products of the Massive Liberal Distortion Field that existed from 1932 to 1979.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
A SUPPORTED BY THE DEVELOPER TOOLS? It was interesting. You seem very knowledgeable in your field.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
“Benny Lava Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
What can I say…they wish to create their own reality?”
I’m okay with that – I want to create my own reality too.
What always confuses me about conservatives is they want to recreate a reality that was lousy the first time around.
Jonnan
February 21st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Look, I know you guys aren’t bright but even you must know what is wrong with comparing results over two hugely different periods of time and simply asserting that one particular difference is the cause of the disparity between those periods.
Moreover, since the great depression the favored type of countercyclical policy has been monetary not fiscal. You contrast two datasets where the use of fiscal stimulus is absent and conclude that fiscal stimulus has been vindicated by history. Amazing.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:09 am
Hay,iam coming again with good offer.what is that?you can submit to my web directory for free.This is my Directory Massdog Directory
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Thank you!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I found your article to be really informative. Nicely done. I will be back!
March 9th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Hay,I like your posting friend and i would like to link exchange with your blog if you want.this is my blog Car Body Kit And also dont forget to come.i will happy if you come .Good bye friend
March 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Thanks for such a great article…Its well written and concise.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I saw your blog while searching Google. Very interesing article I must say. I will now share it with my facebook friends.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
excellent post, very informative
March 11th, 2009 at 4:28 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Haha ^^ nice, is there a section to follow the RSS feed
March 11th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Thanks for your great blog and interesting posts, Keep up the good work!
March 13th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I really liked your blog! I will be linking back to you.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
i feel the exact same way!!
March 14th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Very nice information. Great site keep up the good work
March 14th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Very nice information. Great site keep up the good work
March 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Great Post. I love anykind of news. Cheers for the information
March 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Great post, thanks for the info
March 15th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
LOVE your site, will visit again
Submitted this post to Google News Reader.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:56 am
I want to know more
March 16th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Appreciate the info guys, thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Found this website listed as number one on google
March 17th, 2009 at 1:03 am
I just love your weblog! Very nice post! Still you can do many things to improve it.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:13 am
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people agree with your blog.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:46 am
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
Hey there. I found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. I bookmarked it and I like what I’m resding so far. Thanks!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Buy Viagra…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra…
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?
March 24th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Buy Propecia Online…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
March 24th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Buy Propecia…
http://url.edna.edu.au/eVAJ Buy Propecia…
March 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Arial;}}
March 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
The growing perception is that Japan is falling back into a dark hole of recession again.\par
March 30th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Looking forward to a follow up
March 31st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I wasnt aware of all of this, thank you.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 6th, 2009 at 1:33 am
jwicd bdteg htyixus wmloig towpxzaj bkwmqsv raisuj
April 8th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I wanted to comment and thank the author, good stuff
April 9th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I read your posts for quite a long time and should tell you that your posts always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Very nice information. Thanks for this.its great to see someone with a like mind.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Finally someone who can write a good blog ! I loved your post and will be telling others about it. Subscribing to your RSS feed now. Thanks
April 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
yea nice Work
April 15th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
thanks !! very helpful post!
April 18th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Who designed your page? Looks great! Is it a free template you are using?
April 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
RCDsrt stsjejwhqojr, [url=http://ceijleuenxav.com/]ceijleuenxav[/url], [link=http://qvwwwbhjhajh.com/]qvwwwbhjhajh[/link], http://spllhvuoiuen.com/
April 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Hello. Great job. This is a great story. Thanks!