Actually, I believe as long as there is still a Bolivian tin miner alive willing to see his wages doubled from a dollar a day in the mines to twice that on the whirlpool assembly line, no union jobs in the US are safe. Rather, I would counsel the labor movement to work at unionization of foreign workers rather than preserving their own, as it is only in this way that comparative equalization of wages will occur to stave off wholesale dislocation of industries. (the wobblies are back!)

But unions or no, I cannot for the life of me understand the ideological lens(well, I CAN, but don’t want to think overly much about it) thru which you view world history. I’m too tired and
and still have half a fifth of rum to work thru to dig up the stats, but by almost any economic measurement the economy was in a deep topor in 1940-41 and only war production provided full employment. This is not to say that FDR’s programs were all bad–my Father was in the CCC after all–and the artists and writers program produced some enduring work–but it was all fiddling around the edges to provide the symbalence of motion and hope. Don’t know, in absence of stats, what more to say at this point other than to say that I hope this isn’t an ideological dialogue of the deaf on this matter, but it’s beginning to feel that way.

PS: I’m a lover, not a hater–or not much of one anyway–I reserve my energies for disdain for neo-prohibitionists.

We’re talking about the Obamessiah here, Tim.

But the real howler is your statement that markets “break down in the real world.” Which world in which parallel universe would that be? The one in which Stalinist command economy’s bring the proverbial horn of plenty to a grateful populace? A world in which Socialist economies like those of both “Nu” and “old” labor
bring so much material plenty to their populations–so much so that the term “the British Disease” had to be coined to properly reflect the greater economic glories of nationalized industries and paralyzing influence of labor unions? THAT universe? Is THAT
what you mean when you say markets are only “utopian theories?” Your right Gregg, who are we to believe? You, or our lyin’ eyes?

“The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.”

Oliver Kamm made that clarification in the comments. Actually, it’s not much of clarification. It’s still not particularly clear why he made that odd remark about an “articulate black American” candidate.

I find it unlikely that Oliver Kamm would make such a suggestion abour President Bush.

Benjamin:
According to a clarification by Oliver, he was trying to compare Obama with Jesse Jackson who is an inarticulate black American – according to Oliver.

I think we should doubt this claim. Personally, I find it difficult to see how anyone could view Jesse Jackson as inarticulate (frequently wrong, yes, but not inarticulate). And looking at what appears to be the transcript of the discussion upon which Kamm based his post, we can see Kamm said “There is tremendous sympathy within Europe for the notion of Obama as president for the very good and understandable reason of the powerful symbolism of an articulate black American vying as a mainstream candidate, not like Jesse Jackson, for the American presidency.” The clear implication of this statement is that he views Jackson too as as “articulate black Americans”, but one who, unlike Obama, did not run as a mainstream candidate.

Erm, no, it accords perfectly with common sense and reflects the historical record.

If economists at Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley e.t.c are to be believed then such policies contributed and prolonged the misery of the Great Depression particularly amongst the poor.

The majority of economists and almost all historians agree that the New Deal ended the Great Depression and ushered in America’s recovery. They have analysed the actual effects of FDR’s policies when put in practice.

A minority of economists do, as you say, disagree. They have tested the New Deal against their own utopian theories, and found reality wanting. The New Deal goes against their economic and religious beliefs, their crypto-religious faith in the free market – and they have chosen to reject it rather than tackle their own false premises. The Cato Institute is a prime example of this. Their beliefs are fine and dandy in theory, but they completely break-down in the real world.