I think Farmer wants to reflate the stock price bubble, not so much housing. But still pretty nutty.

Well, his Gold Std trope was pretty wacko, but he had various other metrics of non-growth that better substantiated teh title of teh article, so I was really hoping to see Dean Baker respond to THAT article in teh Sunday Times. Some of us noneconomists sense a waning US in the historical process, and can't help but notice the frequency of downturns lately, as those who fleece teh 'small investor' wageslave working stiff aren't chastised for their antisocial behavior at our expense, so they just do it again each time our wariness wearies. Dean?? analysis?????

You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of seashell!

Maybe its all the pollen in the air here in DC- its got me all huffy and agitated too. @Eric- Warren Mosler has a pretty good takedown on his own website. Its no Baker-esque critique but it gets the job done.

I think Robert Scheer's 04/02/13 Huff.Post piece on David Stockman is TREMENDOUS, so what am I missing? Is the only role left to Economists to defend their tribe? Personally, I think it's time for Economists to rethink when they nitpick and when they choose to address the "macro" in "macro". I no longer expect independence from PK, but DB has repeatedly set himself apart because he is fearless. So, what about it, DB? What do you really think of the main argument in Scheer's post? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...96758.html

the gold standard is nuts -- it would give us double-digit unemployment for decades. that is not nit-picking, it is fundamental.

Bailey, having read Stockman, you and Scheer (I tempted to use ad hominems with Scheer, since he uses them himself with n he seems to miss the point that Stockman wants to go back to the "Gold Standard." This is what Krugman, Dean, and others believe was crankiness. The "Gold Standard" was many things, but populist it never was, it was the the "creditors" institution. If you want to see how it would work, look to Europe, where as Miles O'Brien at the Atlantic points out, you have the "Gold Standard," just without the shiny nuggets and bars. Stockman warns about economic catastrophe (as if we were not in a pretty good one already with 8% unemployment here and 15% underemployment), but in 1929-33, the price level dropped 50%, GDP dropped 25%, urban unemployment was estimated at between 25% to 30%, and farms (then still 25% of the economy) were being lost to foreclosure and abandonment. Speaking of savers and no more FDIC, it may be subsidy to the banks, but savers may not like low interest rates, but we really hate bank runs and lost of all deposited money. So I guess what you are missing are some of the facts and consequences of Stockman's and Scheer's rants. I share their anger, but would prefer not to be stupid about how to fix the system.

Eric, if you are going to be nostalgic about an era, be nostalgic for the era before David Stockman became OMB Director and Reagan was President. Particular the era from 1945 to 1966. Before the Vietnam War and the dishonest financing of that war which sparked the inflation bug that that laid the groundwork for the rise of Reagan.

Prior to 1933, economic crisis and panics were about every 5 to 6 year events. After 1933, there was still a business cycle, but for a long period there were no more panics, and the consequential severe recessions. That started to come back with Reagan: 1st the S&L scandal; then the 90s stock market bubble and crash (Robert Rubin's "baby"), and finally the housing bubble and the great panic of 2007-08. Stockman may say stuff about "crony capitalism," but he still shilling for the oligarchs like the Koch brothers.

Although it's not specifically about the gold standard, the book Lords of Finance by Liaquat Ahamed is a terrific read on the topic. It's basically the history of the modern central bank--it's nothing radical but one of the themes is just how damaging the attachment to the gold standard was. It also is a very readable economic history (for a non-economist) of the 20s and the 20s, which is really appropriate useful.

Is it not possible to stick with the content of the post in critiquing it? It wasn't Stockman's life works I am complementing, it's Sheer's request we acknowledge the article's thesis - I find it irrefutable: "I have yet read a serious critique of (Stockman's) most brazen claim, that the bailouts and quantitative easing that have saved Wall Street and brought the stock market back to historic heights represent class warfare with the vast majority of Americans on the losing side...."
Clinton, Bush and Obama are amoral water carriers. they have all done very well by forwarding policy that's DEVESTATINGLY undermined our economy's future. But, what's the role we expect of Macro-Economists if it's not to offer plausible predictions and reasonable explanations supported by population samplings?
A young Grad. student could examine for years why PK chose to "sit out" (and worse) certain events that have proved critical to our economy's future, i.e. Glass-Steagall repeal hearings, Boskin cpi adjustment hearings, ignoring the housing debacle until it was all over but damage assessment.

SO, i actually have a question about that. How would using sea shells as currency be relevantly different from Kensey's theories about putting gold bars in abandoned iron mines and letting people dig for them? YOu do some work and receive something that can be used as currency for it. Poverty is ameliorated as anyone can just search for shells if they cannot find other work. Alternatively, you could use a certain type of rock, or some other thing that is publicly owned but requires some personal effort to acquire in any quantity. Beyond possible tradagy of the coons issues (which are present in any economy) where is the problem here?

sherparick

"Stockman may say stuff about "crony capitalism," but he('s)still shilling for the oligarchs"

I came to a similar conclusion. i read and re-read the article and was continually struck by the randomness and quantity of emotional buttons he was trying to push to attract and elicit positive responses from the reader. It was like a lesson from Psychology 101 or a course in Persuasive Discussion where you use cognitive dissonance to win approval from the widest audience possible and slip in the pig somewhere in the middle, surroundng it with the proverbial lipstick.

When all was written and done, all I got out of it was the unwritten expression "now that you are nodding your head and smiling peasant, bend over."

There was also that Bloomberg article on how Bitcoin is going to be the currency of the future even though it's in hyperdeflation.