Alright, so I got my monthly letter of the normally Neo-Con dominated Imprimis (it’s a shame Lew Rockwell left, the quality has clearly gone into free-fall), however this time around Amity Shale has her own column, discussing, "The Rules of the Game and Economic Recovery" (apparently, this was part of the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series at Hillsdale College give on February 2, 2010).
However, what I find particularly striking about her speech was the questionable amount of concessions she made in her argument. I'm not sure if it was the audience (I mean it's Hillsdale we are speaking about here) or the pons asinorumregarding her understanding of monetary policy. She made little mention of the Federal Reserve's policies during the 1920s-1930s, and when she did, she was in favor of their policies, but had her caveats. For example, Ms. Shlaes states that, "Regarding monetary policy, it is clear that there wasn't enough money in the early 1930s. So, Roosevelt was not wrong in trying to reflate. Then, instead of criticizing FDR’s decision to take us off the gold standard in April of 1933, (she doesn't even bother to mention the confiscation), Ms. Shlaes goes on to lament FDR for the way he set gold prices afterwards (picking lucky numbers etc.). Additionally, there were other capitulations made for no particular reason that again (to me at least) just reveal her flawed logic, like how FDR's presidency gave us the SEC and the 30-year mortgage, which were apparently beneficial to American society. The Securities and Exchange Commission can't even fulfill its intended purpose (Bernie Madoff, Enron, AIG anyone?) and has largely been the laughing stock of regulatory agencies in the United States!
On the other hand, I did enjoy how she spoke eloquently about the significance of property rights in America today, but other than that, I believe she completely failed to address any matters that are actually relevant. I also dislike the fact that I’m going to sound highly condescending here, but for someone who graduated from Yale University (and has all those accolades under her belt); her economic work is incredibly sloppy and inconsistent. I mean for an alleged expert on the Great Depression, it appears that her work is fairly inchoate, which makes me beg the question: What has she been reading and studying all along?
Here's the link: http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/mvanderwei/Page_6907/Imprimis_Sept10.pdf