August 16, 2009
Glenn Beck and the Cato Institute
I know I should leave it alone. Like an itch that only gets worse when you scratch it. But I’ve got Glenn Beck on the brain, so I’m going to scratch again.
Specifically, I’ve been thinking about the relationship between Beck and the Cato Institute…and what it says about the latter.
The Cato Institute, for those who don’t know, is a hyper-right wing American think tank based in Washington D.C. which describes itself thus:
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.
But what you really need to know – and can’t get from this sort of fluff – is that it’s a right-libertarian organisation. It wants a flat tax for the US, drastic reductions in government spending, and end to taxpayer money paying for hospitals and schools, that sort of thing. Naturally, being a libertarian organisation, it is opposed to the Obama reforms which aim to provide universal care to all Americans without relying on the market to do it (conveniently ignoring the 40 million for whom market failure can mean death). Which is not to say that Cato necessarily supports the present US system, but it does mean they would rather maintain the status quo than see Obama’s reforms take place.
Now, whilst scratching my Beck-shaped itch, I stumbled across this on Glenn Beck’s website:
VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America’s march to socialism.
GLENN: We’re marching right to socialism. That’s so crazy when people say that, marching to socialism. How irresponsible. You know, the Cato Institute has this terrible habit of noticing how government is getting bigger and bigger, regardless of what party’s in power. They just released a report yesterday keeping the tally of this country’s march to socialism. And when I say march, it’s not really a march. It’s more like a gold medal Olympic Sprint.
“Hmm”, I thought to myself, “do the Cato Institute know that Beck is a fan of theirs?”
It puzzled me for what some might consider a naive reason. You see, the Cato Institute presents itself as a think tank. A respectable and intellectual organisation producing evidence-based reports in order to influence government policy in America. So I thought they might be worried about being praised by a man who:
- Mocked an 11 year old girl on national television (after declaring that he prays for the security services every night).
- Said the following to the United States’ first muslim senator (again on national television): ‘With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, “Let’s cut and run.” And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies”.’
- Described anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan “a pretty big prostitute” (later rescinded to “tragedy pimp”) on national radio.
- Has been exposed as a liar.
- Described Barack Obama (whose mother was white) as a racist: “This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture.”
- Screams at callers to his show in a manner which can only be described as “primordial” and “bestial”.
So imagine my enormous surprise when I went a-Googling and found this:
and this:
and I could carry on, but they’re all here.
It appears that far from being unaware of, or alarmed by, Beck’s praise…the Cato Institute are Beck’s friends and regular have been his guests. [H/t to Dan for making me change that]
Does the Cato Institute endorse Beck’s outrageous behaviour, or does it merely see his national TV audience as a useful way to get inside the homes of millions of Americans?
It doesn’t really matter. For they say that you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps, and why should different rules apply to think tanks?
Of course, somebody might cynically suggest that the Cato Institute isn’t so much a think tank as a front organisation to protect and enhance the privileges of America’s elites whilst giving faux-intellectual credence to self-serving policies dreamed up by the most extreme of rightwing Republicans.
I personally wouldn’t say that. It’s too over-simplified a picture. You couldn’t shove Cato’s advocacy of drug de-criminalisation into that frame, for example. But nonetheless, I am intrigued by Cato’ willingness to ally itself with the doyen of frothing-at-the-mouth loopiness.
More to the point, do they not find an association with the man deeply embarrassing? It was recently reported that advertisers have started to pull out of Beck’s show because his rhetoric was becoming too intolerable and actually harming their products.
Will the Cato Institute follow suit? If not, it should be said that praise flows both ways: by continuing to associate with Beck, we can only assume that the Cato Institute supports him.
Are they happy with that?
Dan said,
August 16, 2009 at 5:47 pm
This seems a bit of wild flailing in the wind to me. Yes, people affiliated with Cato, a major libertarian think tank, appear on Glenn Beck’s show, one of the only programs on cable news networks which is sympathetic to libertarianism. Does that mean that Cato endorse everything that Glenn Beck says? That they’re ‘friends’ with Glenn Beck? That they’re ‘allied’ with him? No, of course it doesn’t. Why is there a constant obsession on the left with finding everyone guilty by association?
Personally this kind of TV is not my cup of tea, but if it comes down to a choice between having people from Cato on Glenn Beck and not having them on TV at all, I’m pretty certain that they’re making the right choice.
Finally, it is incredibly tiring to read crap like “Of course, somebody might cynically suggest that the Cato Institute isn’t so much a think tank as a front organisation to protect and enhance the privileges of America’s elites whilst giving faux-intellectual credence to self-serving policies dreamed up by the most extreme of rightwing Republicans”, even if you did qualify it. Cato are consistently libertarian on drugs (as you point out), civil liberties, corporate welfare, foreign policy, and immigration, despite the fact that most of these put them entirely at odds with the Republican party as well as a good chunk of ‘America’s elites’. Why does it always have to be “our side has our views, while the other side has their interests?” Is it that hard to accept that some people really do just honestly disagree with you, and that they advocate free markets not because they are in the pay of big business (who are often very much equivocal about free markets themselves) but… because they believe in free markets?
Paul said,
August 16, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Dan,
If a prominent left-wing “thinktank” that advocated radical Marxism repeatedly associated with Michael Moore, then those on the right would point and laugh.
Glenn Beck is about a thousand times more vile than Michael Moore is crass and stupid.
If the Cato Institute wants to be taken seriously, why is it associating so freely with a raving maniac? Because that’s what Glenn Beck is.
Secondly, we all know Cato is a front organisation so let’s stop the crying. Their purpose is to advocate super-right wing policies knowing most of them will never gain traction, but hoping to help shift the consensus rightward by flooding American politics with their views. It’s politics, fair play to them; they can do that if they want in a democracy.
Same as the Centre for Freedom and Prosperiy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritige Foundation are all playing the same game.
But when they associate with lunatics who ridicule children and scream at people instead of having anything like a rational debate, then I’m allowed to write sarcastic posts highlighting their association with said whack-jobs.
If you don’t like it, fine. But don’t cry about it.
Dan said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Paul,
‘don’t cry about it’ – wow, I wish I had the presence of mind to come up with such a devastating riposte. I thought that there might have been even a tiny part of you that actually wanted a reasonable discussion, but apparently not. Cato’s ‘repeated association’ with Glenn Beck consists of allowing their fellows to appear on his TV show what looks to be an enormous 6 times out of a massive 21 youtube results in which the two names are tagged together, but still, it’s damning evidence you’ve got there.
You also spend a lot of time complaining about the deterioration of political discourse in this country. Well; it might help, to begin with, if people didn’t immediately characterize anyone who disagrees with them as “a front organization.” But then again, as an evil right winger in the pocket of all those big corporations (lol I wish), what do I know.
Paul said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“‘don’t cry about it’ – wow, I wish I had the presence of mind to come up with such a devastating riposte.”
Dan, this isn’t an entirely unreasonable response. Though it’s probably ruder than you deserve. I’m pointing to an association with somebody who – even you must admit – is scarily off the wall. You response is basically to complain that you can’t institutions by who they associate with…but that just seems wrong to me. Your first comment didn’t really seem to have anything more substantive about it than that complaint. Hence the (rude) dismissal.
You do make more substatial points this time around though:
“Cato’s ‘repeated association’ with Glenn Beck consists of allowing their fellows to appear on his TV show what looks to be an enormous 6 times out of a massive 21 youtube results in which the two names are tagged together, but still, it’s damning evidence you’ve got there.”
Quickly typing in “cato glenn beck” to youtube, I see that 5 of the video results are posted by…catoinstitutevideo! So they are not just appearing on his show, they’re publicising appearances on his show. Hmm…
“You also spend a lot of time complaining about the deterioration of political discourse in this country. Well; it might help, to begin with, if people didn’t immediately characterize anyone who disagrees with them as “a front organization.””
Er, maybe. Unless, of course, in the author’s honest opinion it’s a perfectly accurate way to describe said organisation? I note that you don’t actually challenge my description of Cato as a front organisation. Which I find interesting.
“But then again, as an evil right winger in the pocket of all those big corporations (lol I wish), what do I know.”
I don’t think I’ve ever accused you of that. I think I’ve argued that you appear strangely blinded to the evils of freemarkets and the behaviour of corporations whilst slamming the state for things it seems to do less badly. But that’s different. And you know it is.
Dan said,
August 16, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Paul,
Quickly typing in “cato glenn beck” to youtube, I see that 5 of the video results are posted by…catoinstitutevideo! So they are not just appearing on his show, they’re publicising appearances on his show. Hmm…
So your smoking gun is now a youtube channel presumably set up to put interviews with Cato academics online? Yet it doesn’t strike you as a bit ridiculous to single out Glenn Beck given that there are what, 167 videos put up by catoinstitutevideo, the last of which are interviews by Cato staff on NBC, CNN, Fox Business news, ABC, and BBC World, i.e. basically all of the major networks. The fact that 5 out of this 167 are on Beck’s show proves what, exactly? I mean, there are 8 videos CNN news, well known to be one of the more left-leaning networks. Does this mean that Cato is secretly left-wing, or has an alliance with CNN? No, probably not.
Er, maybe. Unless, of course, in the author’s honest opinion it’s a perfectly accurate way to describe said organisation? I note that you don’t actually challenge my description of Cato as a front organisation. Which I find interesting.
Of course I deny that Cato is a front organisation. They’re a libertarian think-tank, and they’re filled (unsurprisingly) with libertarians. If you knew very much about the ideology you criticize so much, you’d realize that big business likes us rather less than you might suspect.
Peter said,
August 16, 2009 at 7:51 pm
You may have already seen this (it was mentioned on Leiter), but there are some thoroughly nasty comments about G.A. Cohen, from Cato academic Tom G. Palmer, over here:
http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/08/07/g-a-cohen/
Re: Cato and keeping company with horrible people, I’m reminded about Brian Barry’s remarks in his review of Anarchy, State and Utopia.
“if Nozick is discontented to find that his views put him in nasty company, he should, I suggest, reflect on the possibility that the reason is that they are nasty views”
Peter said,
August 16, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Actually, my invocation of the Barry quote is unfair. Plenty of libertarians are sound guys who don’t hold nasty views (they just hold views that I consider mistaken, but fortunately views which are not politically mainstream) *hugs Dan*.
Paul said,
August 16, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Dan,
Re CNN appearances: I have no problem with Cato appearing on CNN! That’s perfectly fine by me, nothing to point to and question there.
I wouldn’t even really be bothered by them appearing on the O’Reilly Factor. I hate O’Reilly, but I think he’s a clever, sophisticated demagogue. If Cato wanted to be on his show, well OK.
But Glenn Beck is in another league entirely. He is a frothing maniac. And my point is about the extent to which Cato are happy associating with that particular maniac, not about their appearance on other TV networks!
Re Libertarians and big business: Again, I didn’t say anything to justify your comment about big business not liking libertarians. I know that’s true. The point I did make was about your tendency to have skewed perceptions of the bad stuff states do vis-a-vis the bad stuff markets and corporations (both big and small) do. Why bring it back to “big business”?
P.S. your comment was the 666th on this site. I will leave the significance of that up to you!
Paul said,
August 16, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Peter,
I agree sort of, but modify:
“lots of libertarian views are held by people like Dan who are clearly anything but nasty (and are also highly intelligent), yet appear not to realise that their views if put into practice would have very nasty consequences”
Dan said,
August 16, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Peter,
I’ve met Tom Palmer personally, and he seemed like a perfectly nice chap to me. I am in two minds about his posts, though. On the one hand, the post certainly leaves a bitter taste in my mouth given that Cohen just died, and given that if possible one should not speak ill of the dead. But on the other, regardless of their context, I don’t think Palmer’s criticisms are too far off the mark; I think there is something a bit repulsive about the passages Palmer quoted, given that the state under discussion murdered something like 60 million people over the course of its existence. I wouldn’t have written the post myself, but I certainly don’t think it makes him a thoroughly nasty person.
For what it’s worth, I also get the impression there was no love lost between the two of them: I have heard stories (which I don’t really want to go into, if possible, for reasons above) which I’ve heard corroborated by others which, if true, mean that Cohen acted very shabbily indeed towards Palmer when he was at Oxford. I also know that Palmer was very active in the 80s in Russia and the Communist bloc in an attempt to spread libertarian ideas, and this direct contact may mean he is even less of a fan of the USSR than most people. I’m not sure that this excuses the post, but I think it does mitigate it somewhat.
As for Brian Barry, my favourite take-down of Barry is here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~schmidtz/papers/barry.pdf
Dan said,
August 16, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Paul,
But Glenn Beck is in another league entirely. He is a frothing maniac. And my point is about the extent to which Cato are happy associating with that particular maniac, not about their appearance on other TV networks!
I quite agree with you about Glenn Beck, I just think that you have done nothing to show that Cato are “Beck’s friends and regular guests” as opposed to occasional participants in his show, which, like with other news programs by major US networks, they happily appear on to spread the ideas they believe in.
Re Libertarians and big business: Again, I didn’t say anything to justify your comment about big business not liking libertarians. I know that’s true. The point I did make was about your tendency to have skewed perceptions of the bad stuff states do vis-a-vis the bad stuff markets and corporations (both big and small) do. Why bring it back to “big business”?
I guess I thought of big business immediately when you talked about Cato being a “front organisation” – if not business interests, what, exactly, are they supposed to be a front for?
Paul said,
August 16, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Dan,
“I quite agree with you about Glenn Beck, I just think that you have done nothing to show that Cato are “Beck’s friends and regular guests” as opposed to occasional participants in his show,”
I suppose I have to admit that you have a fair point here.
My point in response is: well occasional participation is still too much. Will Cato come out and promise that the mistake will not be repeated? Which doesn’t, i think, damage my original polemic too much.
“I guess I thought of big business immediately when you talked about Cato being a “front organisation” – if not business interests, what, exactly, are they supposed to be a front for?”
The interests of the already privileged (largely) white, (largely) male, monied elites. Many of those elites will also be involved with big business, to be sure, but I strongly suspect that many of them may think that they can get what they like out of libertarianism – e.g. low taxes, no regulation by the state – without having to shoulder the full implications of the ideology: the claw-back of overly-large corporations (though, without a state, who’s going to claw them back, by the way?)
No doubt there are some “true” libertarians like yourself who want genuine libertarianism all the way down. But it is my avowed belief that your reflective, philosophical thoughts are not indicative of many people driving (e.g.) American libertarianism, who essentially want lower taxes and a smaller state purely for their own self interestes and don’t have your sophisticated deontological and (apparently) consequentialist thoughts about how this would help the worse-off too.
You must surely have reflected that many of your political allies do not share the noble ideals you yourself posses? That rather they like bits of libertarianism which suit them, and would chuck the rest out, and therefore see it as a wonderful device to try and shift the consensus rightward in their favour?
That’s why I think it’s a front organisation. From the little I know, they have “genuine” libertarians like yourself working there, for sure, (I think Dan Mitchell is apparently a good example, or so i’m told) but I don’t believe they drive it. They are, rather, being used by the wealthy privileged elites who want more, more more for themselves.
As for Palmer’s remarks about Cohen, they really do go too far.
The first remarks are really based on nothing more than his personal testament. I find it very hard to believe that Cohen would have such lobbying-power over editors. We also only have Palmer’s account of the nasty tutorial which seems to have scarred him for life. Furthermore, this:
“He should have spent his life begging forgiveness from all of the people who suffered from his pro-Soviet (he spent a good bit of his youth as a Soviet propagandist, which was essentially a family enterprise) and pro-Communist activities. He was no different than any old National Socialist who might have regretted that National Socialism wasn’t nationally socialist enough, but who enjoyed the “mental space” it created to construct fantasies of an ideal life.
I will merely point out that his attacks on charity and assistance to others is consistent, not only with his political philosophy, but with his personality and life.”
Is just way, way too far. I also suspect that his quote about USSR is removed from some mitigating context…though I don’t have S-O, F&E with me in London (do you? can you check?)
And even if Cohen did say that, it’s only evidence of one careless and admitedly tasteless thought expressed in one book across a long career. To compare him to a Nazi is, well, too much.
Tax Research UK » The Cato Institute: at the heart of misinformation said,
August 16, 2009 at 10:13 pm
[...] Glenn Beck and the Cato Institute « Bad Conscience. [...]
The Cato Institute: at the heart of misinformation | called2account said,
August 17, 2009 at 12:00 am
[...] Glenn Beck and the Cato Institute « Bad Conscience. [...]
Peter said,
August 17, 2009 at 12:59 am
Dan,
It’s the thought about his tutorial that I personally find so odd. I mean … it’s a real question whether you disagree with the conclusion or the argument. It’s possible to have an unsound argument for a true conclusion. If Palmer can’t see that, he’s an idiot.
The other stuff is just obviously beyond the pale. What does he think would happen if he said stuff like that to someone’s face? He’d get a broken nose, and deservedly so!
Paul said,
August 17, 2009 at 2:07 am
Peter, I agree.
And what’s especially ironic about Palmer apparently not seeing that it’s a perfectly worthwhile question is that he goes on to try and rubbish Cohen for…spending a career attempting to show that in very important ways conclusions may be separate from their arguments.
The more I read that “obituary”, the more it looks like the nasty jibes of a man with a persecution complex. I don’t know if that’s a fair assesment – people would get some pretty funny ideas about me if they went a-googling my name – but the piece, written so soon after Cohen’s death, just reeks of nastiness.
And again, we’re back to the Barry quote. Eh, Dan?
Bruno Prior said,
August 18, 2009 at 12:47 am
It looks like right and left alike are capable of ignorant lies, putting ideology ahead of the facts. See Paul’s contribution on the Tax Research UK blog at http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/08/16/the-cato-institute-at-the-heart-of-misinformation/. This may shed some light on the depth of knowledge, understanding and perspective underlying Paul’s views.
Paul said,
August 18, 2009 at 10:27 am
Err, Bruno, you appear to be linking to a thread where I point out that you appear grossly ignorant about something, and you don’t offer any kind of rebbutal…..hardly misinformation and lies, is it?
Rude, yes. But lies?
Bruno Prior said,
August 18, 2009 at 10:51 am
Paul, Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of economic history won’t need me to point out the reason why your post is arrogant nonsense. I have posted a rebuttal, but Richard hasn’t moderated it yet. What it says is:
“Paul,
Heard of Carl Menger, Eugen v. Boehm-Bawerk, Friedrich v. Wieser, Ludwig v. Mises, Richard v. Strigl? No? Noticed that Hayek, Machlup and Haberler were born around the turn of the century and began their academic careers in the 20s? No? Then don’t talk crap about stuff you haven’t got a clue about. I think we’ll know how seriously to take your other comments from now on. (For those wondering who’s right, just go and google those names, and discover what a plonker Paul is.)
And still I wait to learn which country it was that went bust from implementation of Austrian ideas (according to Simon) that have never been put into practice (according to Paul).”
Grossly ignorant? One of us is, but it isn’t me. If you’ve never heard of Carl Menger and his role in the marginalist revolution of 1871, you really shouldn’t be commenting on economic history.
Ignorance is one thing. We all don’t know stuff. It’s the arrogant assumption that if you don’t know it, it can’t exist, which shows the sort of person you are.
Paul said,
August 18, 2009 at 10:57 am
Bruno,
In my defence:
The post I put up on Richard’s blog was written *before* your second post had gotten through moderation. I was thus responding to your first post, which I think you can agree was not fleshed out enough at all, and implied that the Austrian school had been applied as a macroeconomic theory in Germany and Austria.
However, you subsequently wrote a much improved account of your position…but that comment wasn’t approved when I wrote mine, so I didn’t see it and hence wrote an inadequate reply.
I accept that your position is not “twitish” as I first thought. I still think it’s wrong in its original formulation, but I hope you can forgive me for my initial outburst given that your detailed post hadn’t gone up on Richard’s site until after I put up my first (rude) reply.
So I apologise.
Paul said,
August 18, 2009 at 10:59 am
p.s. when I wrote my reply to you on this blog, this morning, I hadn’t yet noticed that you’d written another post at richard’s site that I’d missed, hence my accusation that you offered no rebuttal, which given what I’ve not realised, was clearly unfair. So I apologise for that, as well.
Bruno Prior said,
August 18, 2009 at 11:43 am
Paul,
No problem. I’m rude back to people who are rude to me, but happy to return to civilized debate if offered.
And yes, I agree, no one to my knowledge has implemented a “full Austrian programme”, whatever that might involve. I didn’t claim that they had. What I was referring to was monetary policy. Mises, through his role at the Chamber of Commerce (which had a very different standing to our Chambers of Commerce) was a significant economic adviser to the interwar Austrian government, and fought tirelessly for sound money policies. Quite a lot of the time, they didn’t take his advice, but Austria didn’t do quite as bad in this regard as Germany once they’d been able to stop the immediate post-war inflation (with international assistance), and the availability of informed advice warning against debasing the currency, which was almost completely absent in a Germany dominated by the relativist, historicist school, probably had something to do with that.
Incidentally, Boehm-Bawerk also got some “Austrian” measures implemented during his stints as Finance Minister before the Great War. The course of events before and after WWI showed that the world would have been a better place if they had listened more to him and Mises.
Paul said,
August 18, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I’ll happily admit I’m out of my depth here, and will also hold up my hand and admit that I didn’t appreciate the extent to which the Austrian school had pedigree before the post-WWII Hayek era.
What i will say is that I find it hard to believe that the sort of free-market economics the Austrain school advocates would have countered the rise of state fascism in Germany. The failures of market capitalism (stemming from the Wall Street Crash) led to social upheavals and tensions which were exploited in large measure by the Nazi party advocating a heavily interventionist economic approach.
As you say on your blog, the Austrian school was (as we would imagine) deeply opposed to fascism…but given the struggles of market capitalism in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe that an approach which would have encouraged more market capitalism not less would have fared well against the Nazi ideology which specifically rejected free markets in many key respects. In other words, I am dubious about your (apparent) contention that a more “Austrian” approach to economics in 1930s Germany would have led that country away from fascism.
But as i say – and you earlier rightly pointed out – i’m out of my depth on the economic history.
Incidentally, are you going to acknowledge in your blog that I have apologised and back-tracked? It would seem only fair…
Tim Worstall said,
August 19, 2009 at 11:42 am
Your argument seems to be that Cato peeps have appeared on Beck’s show thus Cato peeps are very nasty peeps because Beck is a nasty peep.
Eh?
I’ve appeared on the BBC and that doesn’t mean that I agree with the BBC line on things.
Paul said,
August 19, 2009 at 11:53 am
Tim,
No, but it means you think the BBC is an acceptable organisation that you are happy to associate with, right, even if you don’t agree with them?
It’s the matter of association that I’m questioning. Beck to me looks like such a frothing maniac that even associating with the guy looks, if not dubious, then pretty embarassing.
As Dan points out above in the comments, Cato have appeared on CNN lots of times, so do I infer they are leftish? My response was, as to you, that I have no issue with Cato going on CNN (or even for that matter, The O’Reilly Factor) because I think those are respectable enough media outlets. In the case of O’Reilly, I really dislike the guy and disagree with his views, but I still think he’s just about respectable in terms of not being all the things Beck is as described above.
So this isn’t about simply appearing on any old show, it’s about being happy to appear on the Glenn Beck show specifically, given all the things Beck gets up to and how loopy he appears to be.
Bruno Prior said,
August 19, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Paul,
It was just a matter of time – I don’t get much time to go to my blog during the working day. As you’ve hopefully seen, it’s now updated to acknowledge that you’ve shown yourself to be a good bloke.
As for the “what ifs”, they are tempting but I try to avoid them. I hope I haven’t said that a more Austrian approach to economics in 1930s Germany would have led them away from fascism. Who knows, but if I were guessing, I’d say the game was lost by then. The point I was making was that the implementation of historicist monetary policies (historicists, or Socialists of the Chair, believed that money was worth whatever the government deemed it to be worth) after the war was disastrous and was only eventually corrected by the implementation of Austrian-school sound-money policies.
glennbeckbulletin said,
June 3, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Get more of the facts about Beck at The Glenn Beck Review, sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com It covers his deceit and his hypocrisy and shows how unqualified he is to address any complicated issue.