The opening remarks by Jim Cramer to his television show was devoted to laissez faire, the Depression, and the current "crisis". He stated that the British government's response to the 1847 potato famine and the deaths of millions of people was that "it was the market's will". His point was that government intervention was necessary in the current situation and we face another Depression without it.
I recall from conversations on the Mises blog that far from being the market's will, the whole affair was caused by governments favouring entrenched nobility. So how exactly does he justify that statement? By pulling it out of his ass?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Well considering that it is an unbacked shit statement, it might very well be that he pulled it out of his ass. Any other suggestions?
Political Atheists Blog
His basic point was that leaving the markets unchecked can lead to disaster. He was going on and on about how "not enough was done" to prevent the Depression. He then talked about "nihilists" who believe in only the free market. That is when he interjected the "example" of the 1847 potato famine and how the laissez faire attitude of the government led to many deaths. I will post the YouTube video if I find it.
He sounds like a retard so far.
Ok. I'm fairly certain that this is the video (I couldn't get the player to work).
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=874709246&play=1
Here is a synopsis of his rant. Note the comment that "we can't print money fast enough".
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26975823/
I know this is an ad hominem, but I wouldn't take Jim Cramer seriously on anything. Not even on stocks, which he is supposed to know something about. His calls are always wrong, which is surprising, as you'd expect at least a 50% hit rate if he were just guessing direction randomly. The man is consistently mistaken.
As for the potato famine, there are probably some articles on here if you use the search box. I remember there was one featured as daily article few months back.
Holy crap...I couldn't make it through the video. I continue to be amazed with these finance people who know nothing of economics speak about the crisis with such confidence and conviction. "I consider myself to be a stock market historian, and one of the better ones". I bet you do Jim, and hopefully that's about it.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and class less and free. But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see.
There's room at the top they are telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill.
richie2044:He stated that the British government's response to the 1847 potato famine and the deaths of millions of people was that "it was the market's will". His point was that government intervention was necessary in the current situation and we face another Depression without it.
Then he doubly doesn't know anything about history, either. The Potato Famime of 1847 was due to the fact that the British government gave specific land grants and quotas on those folks who were given the land grants to feed the British Empire's populace. Ultimately, the potato crops yielded great bounties for a while until the soil, despite all the enrichment from seaweed/kelp as it was done by the Irish serfs(yes they were still serfs, folks) as a normal procedure, became infertile. In many ways, it was due to direct intervention by the British Empire on forcing the Irish to export their only food crop and to only grow potatos despite their lack of sustainability that setup the conditions for a famime, and not the so-called free market.
Edit: I also forgot to note that a disease also spread among the crops which pretty much killed off a good chunk of the crops themselves, which further throttled the potato crop supply. Which the Empire didn't care, and still kept the governmental quota to fill the potato exports in place.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
At root it was caused by the violation of the property rights of the native Irish, even if it was many generations ago this continuing aggression against the legitimate holders of the land (the Irish peasants) created the unique phenomenon in the British Isles of absentee landlords who simply maximised their income from Irish Lands without re-investing in capital improvements - causing Irish dependence on simple crops like the Potato. This can be contrasted in the protestant north where the the relationship between landlord and tennant was a legitimate one resulting in capital improvements to the land which largely spared the North from the famine.
Libertarianism only defends legitmate property titles and property siezed by theft should be returned to the rightful owners.
I should add it isn't unique, the Highland Clearances in Scotland and the Enclosure Movement in England were also a result of the illegitimate ownership of land by the Aristocracy.
richie2044: His basic point was that leaving the markets unchecked can lead to disaster. He was going on and on about how "not enough was done" to prevent the Depression. He then talked about "nihilists" who believe in only the free market. That is when he interjected the "example" of the 1847 potato famine and how the laissez faire attitude of the government led to many deaths. I will post the YouTube video if I find it.
What was government supposed to do? Subsidize food to destroy the remaining Irish agronomy and create an entire people on welfare?
That has been my question. What was the government supposed to do?
richie2044: That has been my question. What was the government supposed to do?
http://mises.org/daily/2978
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
The famine was caused by many things but none were a lack of government involvement.
First, when the English took control of Ireland they prevented the traditional way of handing down land - the eldest son inherited everything - and instead forced people to divide their land equally among their sons. This led to people being left with tiny pieces of land which just about allowed them to survive.
Secondly, the English had taken an etremely anti-Irish stance since the Act of Union in the early 1800s.
I'm already too bored typing, there loads of stuff to talk about, so I'll just give you a few links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCwUnl2iIHE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2sx5UCdKo&feature=related
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking