Wednesday, January 7, 2009

HOT5 Daily 1/7/2009

1. "My Open Letter to Daniel Gross of Newsweek (Historians and the Great Depression)" For those who think there is only one valid historical interpretation of the New Deal.

Representative Sample: Off the top of my head, I can name “several serious professional historians” who would probably argue (and argue strongly) “that the New Deal prolonged the Depression.”

2. "The good war?" Some thoughts on Afghanistan by the author of Fiasco

Representative Sample:  I thought that invading Afghanistan in late 2001 was the right thing to do, and I still do.  But I wonder what the hell we've been doing since then.

3. "The Canadian Left vs. Israel" Illogic and anti-Semitism in Canada.

Representative Sample: It's called Liblogs, and you can see it here. To my regret, it's awash in anti-Israel opinion, some of it troublingly anti-Jewish.

4. "Gaza Is More Than Israel's Concern"  The regional strategic significance of the Gaza situation.

Representative Sample:  If the conflict in Gaza ends with the Iranian-backed Hamas in power as a major military player, Tehran's next step could well be a spill-over into Egypt 

5. "It's Still Not Chemical Warfare" An examination of the military use of white phosphorus

Representative Sample: My more liberal colleagues and I are having a debate over Israel's use of white phosphorus artillery shells


To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

8 comments:

  1. The historian who says he's an expert on the Great Depression who believes Roosevelt prolonged it is not actually a historian of the Great Depression; his expertise seems to be the civil rights era, and he seems to have no credentials as an economic historian. In addition, part of his grant money comes from the conservative Olin Foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The historian who says he's an expert on the Great Depression who believes Roosevelt prolonged it is not actually a historian of the Great Depression"

    Says who? You do know that some historians work in various areas right? Not every one has a narrow field of specialization. And anyway that's irrelevant to what he wrote. He said that there are plenty of professional historians that share his view, which there are.

    "In addition, part of his grant money comes from the conservative Olin Foundation."

    So what? If he's a conservative it's not suprising he might get some support from conservative organizations. Do we have to throw out every academic study because it may be partially funded by some group with a partisan outlook? You'd have to discount much of what comes out of academia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Says who?

    His bibliography. The only academic stuff I saw there that's related to the Depression is a book about tax resistance in the 1930s. Compare that to Brad DeLong, who's published many papers in economic history about periods ranging from Medieval Europe until today, or Ben Bernanke, who specialized in the economic history of the Depression.

    So what? If he's a conservative it's not suprising he might get some support from conservative organizations.

    The Olin Foundation has a track record of funding shoddy research, for example anything that comes out of John Lott. Serious conservative economists, like Greg Mankiw, have managed to do without taking its money.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, there is only one valid historical interpretation of the New Deal. It doesn't seem to me that you actually think like this, but opposing views, no matter how qualified both sides are, are not relative. One side is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alon,

    "The Olin Foundation has a track record of funding shoddy research"

    Well, I'll take your word for that. I don't know much about them. But again, most academics are going to take money where they can get it.

    Alexander,

    "no matter how qualified both sides are, are not relative. One side is wrong."

    I think that's a major oversimplification, especially regarding an extremely complex historical event like the Great Depression. That's why we call them interpretations, not recitations of fact. It is possible for different interpretations to be partially correct & partially incorrect. There are all sorts of possible permutations. For example, an interpretation could be correct about the impact of monetary policy in causing the depression, but incorrect about its use during the New Deal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since the post was about the question on whether the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression or not, let me restate what I mean: Opposing views on a particular question that can be answered with facts and reason are, no matter how well-qualified both sides are, not relative. I obviously didn't mean to say that one of the two major camps of New Deal economic history has got it all wrong and the other side is right. But differing answers to clear questions with a limited scope are not equally valid.

    Again, as made obvious by your insistence on detail, you don't think this way, but the wording struck me as somewhat too relativistic, a la creationism: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/false_equivalence.php

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alexander, please don't quote PZ Myers on anything, especially not economics. My understanding is that most economists and economic historians think the New Deal helped alleviate the Depression, but even then the consensus is nowhere near that of biologists on evolution, and the evidence is nowhere near as inscrutable that one has to take expert consensus on faith.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alexander,

    "I obviously didn't mean to say that one of the two major camps of New Deal economic history has got it all wrong and the other side is right. But differing answers to clear questions with a limited scope are not equally valid."

    Ok, point granted. I misinterpreted the scope of what you were arguing.

    Alon,

    "My understanding is that most economists and economic historians think the New Deal helped alleviate the Depression"

    Yes, that is definitely the majority view.

    "but even then the consensus is nowhere near that of biologists on evolution"

    Exactly. That was basically the point of the article I linked. There is a significant minority of economists and historians (some who do specialize in economic history or other related fields), who differ with all or part of the majority view on the New Deal. For example, the entire Austrian school of economics goes against the majority view.

    With evolution there is no minority group of actual scientists in evolutionary fields who disagree with evolution, especially since significant elements of evolution have such an overwhelming weight of evidence that they are considered fact. There's no serious minority school of thought among biologists, paleontologists, etc. that rejects evolution.

    ReplyDelete