America Was Founded On Conservative Principles... and operated that way for about 125 years

Just what we need. The same blithering idiots who think a man can become a woman by putting on a dress aren't satisfied with making a hash of science. Now they want to move into civics and economics classes, too.


They thought that going back and changing temperature data worked so well that they might as well go back and change the history of other things, too.
smiley-taunt001.gif
 
Last edited:
'1776: The Revolt Against Austerity'
Steve Pincus at the New York Review of Books:

1776: The Revolt Against Austerity: Was the Declaration of Independence a powerful indictment of British austerity policies? Does America’s founding document need to be seen as part of an economic debate about the British Empire? ... Just as political debates in Britain and the United States today turn in large part on the response to the great recession of 2008, so the events that made the United States were shaped by the British imperial government’s reaction to the debt crisis of the 1760s. What made the Declaration so offensive to British politicians then ... is that America’s founders offered a blueprint for a different kind of state response to fiscal crisis. ... [explains how debt crisis led to austerity policies for the colonies] ...

What alternative strategy did the authors of the Declaration propose? Today, we tend to regard the practice of using government spending to stimulate economic growth as an invention of John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s. But already in the eighteenth century, self-styled Patriots, followers of Pitt on both sides of the Atlantic, argued that what the British Empire needed if it was to recover from the fiscal crisis was not austerity but an economic stimulus. ...

Twenty-first century American politicians routinely draw our attention to our founding moment and founding document... But they fail to understand the economic arguments that in large measure shaped what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues wrote. When Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin proudly proclaims that “we celebrate the fourth of July and not April 15, because in America we celebrate our independence from the government, not our dependence on them [sic],” he fails to see that our founders blamed George III and his government not for taxing too much but for doing too little to stimulate consumer demand. ...

America’s founding document called for an American state that would promote economic growth just as the British state had done before the shift toward balancing the books. ... Had George III and his ministers not adopted austerity measures in the 1760s and 1770s, had they chosen to follow Pitt’s policies of economic stimulus, America’s founders might not have needed to declare their independence at all.

[That's only a small part of the essay -- there's a lot more in the full post, e.g. an argument the Adam Smith supported expansionary policy for the colonies.]

Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:15 AM in Economics, Fiscal Policy |

This has to be written by the Onion. Are we supposed to believe that colonists were economically savvy and blamed King George because he didn't run a stimulus plan? Holy shit in the depths of horseshit...what a joke!

American's founding fathers knew they had to stimulate the economy, true, but this was simply what you had to do when building a country from the ground up. But to suggest the revolution was about austerity is so outlandish that I cannot believe even you have lent credence to it.
 
Nice find, Ricter. Seems as though a lot of people, and notably ETers, "love" a history they don't even understand. Which explains their "love" of several other conclusions. Science or economics, anyone?

And it seems other "ETers" like to make up history to fit a narrative.
 
This has to be written by the Onion. Are we supposed to believe that colonists were economically savvy and blamed King George because he didn't run a stimulus plan? Holy shit in the depths of horseshit...what a joke!
.
Yes. The colonies needed a fiscal boost but they were getting austerian nonsense from the King. So for that reason, and I assume it was not the only reason (so should you), they decided to go their own way. I also assume the colonists did not think in our terminology, but pretending they did does make the idea "a joke", doesn't it?

By the way, I recall reading somewhere that the nascent federal government had to bail out indebted colonies (so they would sign) prior to confederation. Government meddling from the beginning.
 
Yes. The colonies needed a fiscal boost but they were getting austerian nonsense from the King. So for that reason, and I assume it was not the only reason (so should you), they decided to go their own way. I also assume the colonists did not think in our terminology, but pretending they did does make the idea "a joke", doesn't it?

By the way, I recall reading somewhere that the nascent federal government had to bail out indebted colonies (so they would sign) prior to confederation. Government meddling from the beginning.

The revolution was about taxation without representation. I knew you and Piezoe were Keynesian loonies to the core, but I didn't think you'd start making up history. You never cease to amaze me in your efforts to promote spending.

As for bailing out colonies, I have no doubt they had to do that once a Federal Government was formed. That's not government meddling. That's establishing a country.
 
The revolution was about taxation without representation. I knew you and Piezoe were Keynesian loonies to the core, but I didn't think you'd start making up history. You never cease to amaze me in your efforts to promote spending.

As for bailing out colonies, I have no doubt they had to do that once a Federal Government was formed. That's not government meddling. That's establishing a country.
That is the popular story, but it seems a historian has, presumably, found primary documents to indicate that that's not the whole story. While I know you are mainly a faith-based loon, you never cease to amaze me in your efforts to promote anarchy.
 
That is the popular story, but it seems a historian has, presumably, found primary documents to indicate that that's not the whole story. While I know you are mainly a faith-based loon, you never cease to amaze me in your efforts to promote anarchy.

Anarchy? Please show just one post that I made that supports anarchy. Let's all watch you go silent.

As for these supposed documents, lets see them. Even if there is a document that can be twisted for folks like you and the author to suggest your case might have merit, it's one document in the sea of history. It doesn't change a single thing.
 
Back
Top