Nixon's Big Government Legacy

Remembering Richard Nixon's wage and price controls

Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

Remember "TARP," "Too Big to Fail," "Government Motors," "pay czar," the buzzwords of the Bush-Obama era? They reflected a disturbing trend toward presidential interference in economic life.

Forty years ago this week, President Richard Nixon showed us just how dangerous unchecked executive power can be to the free-enterprise system.

On Aug. 15, 1971, in a nationally televised address, Nixon announced, "I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States."

After a 90-day freeze, increases would have to be approved by a "Pay Board" and a "Price Commission," with an eye toward eventually lifting controls -- conveniently, after the 1972 election.

Putting the U.S. economy "into a permanent straitjacket would ... stifle the expansion of our free enterprise system," Nixon said. As President George W. Bush put it in 2008, sometimes you have to "abandon free-market principles to save the free-market system."

There was no national emergency in the summer of '71: unemployment stood at 6 percent, inflation only a point higher than it is now. Yet, after Nixon's announcement, the markets rallied, the press swooned, and, even though his speech pre-empted the popular Western "Bonanza," the people loved it, too—75 percent backed the plan in polls.

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman correctly predicted, however, Nixon's gambit ended "in utter failure and the emergence into the open of the suppressed inflation." The people would pay the price—but not until after he'd coasted to a landslide re-election in 1972 over Democratic Sen. George McGovern.

By the time Nixon reimposed a temporary freeze in June 1973, Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw explain in The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, it was obvious that price controls didn't work: "Ranchers stopped shipping their cattle to the market, farmers drowned their chickens, and consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets."

Several lessons from Nixon's folly remain highly relevant today.

First, it's usually Congress that lays the foundation for an imperial presidency with unconstitutional delegations of authority to the executive branch. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 gave Nixon legislative cover for his actions.

The act was "a political dare," according to top Nixon official George Shultz—the Democrats thought Nixon wouldn't use the powers they'd granted him, but he called their bluff.

Second, the damage presidents do with economic powers they shouldn't have can take years to repair. Price hikes from the 1973 Arab oil embargo made it politically difficult to unwind controls on gasoline, which led to the gas lines of the late 1970s.

Third, the episode shows the enduring relevance of cartoonist Walt Kelly's Pogo Principle: "We have met the enemy and he is us." As noted, the freeze was overwhelmingly popular. "Bold" presidential action on the economy often is, even when "just stand there—don't do something!" would be wiser counsel.

In the recent debt-limit fight, for example, liberal Democrats who'd spent eight years railing against Bush's executive unilateralism begged Obama to break the law and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, using a fig leaf of a constitutional argument based on the 14th Amendment.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I resent the use of this picture of Elvis on this holiest of holy days.

  • ||

    Hail to the king, baby.

  • ||

    Every day Epi, every day.

  • ||

    I didn't believe until I found out the King was a Python fan. Then all of it made sense to me.

  • ||

    If you haven't seen Bubba Ho-tep, you need to.

  • ||

    Absolutely. More people should see that movie.

  • ||

    I saw it when it opened in Manhattan. Good stuff. Bruce does a hell of an Elvis.

    "It was the size of my fist; the size of a peanut butter and banana sandwich, doc."

  • fish||

    peanut butter and banana sandwich...

    The writers need to do additional Elvis research.

    "E" would have said; "It was the size of my fist; the size of a peanut butter and nanner sammich, doc."

  • ||

    Maybe you should see the movie and hear how he says it before judging it from my from-memory written quote.

  • fish||

    I should!

  • ||

    I would also recommend a short called Mondo Elvis.

  • FlyoverCountry||

    OT (Sort of): The Fall of the Midwestern Economic Model from the Wall Street Journal

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....TopStories

    Interesting article on why BHO is hangin' out in my part of the world today

  • Kiadó Lakás Budapest||

    It would be better in another.

  • King Ludd||

    Ron Paul: Trolling the Republican Party since 1971.

  • Old Mexican||

    On Aug. 15, 1971, in a nationally televised address, Nixon announced, "I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States."


    "I am today using the Constitution as toilet paper, and establishing a precedent for Constitution-soiling presidents from now to Kingdom Come!"

    "Oh, and I created the EPA."

  • ||

    Yes, Nixon saying that and doing all the bad stuff he did does make it hard to say Obama was definitely the worst president of my lifetime. Of course, the competition for that title is fierce.

  • ||

    Quite so. I mean really, what was the difference between Humphrey and Nixon? Everyone believed that big government was the way to go. Nixon was a corporatist, not a Republican. And much less a "republican".

  • Number 2||

    Remember the times. It was ten years before the "Reagan Revolution," when conservatives were viewed by the mainstream media as seriously as, well, Ron Paul is today, and Nixon was seriously considered to be a far right winger. Shows you how far things have changed that Nixon is now -- correctly -- viewed as a "corporatist, not a Republican."

  • ||

    Did you see the Daily Show segment the other day? Ron Paul isn't viewed by the mainstream media at all (let alone 'seriously'). :sadface:

  • Number 2||

    I saw it last night.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It made Google News today.

  • ||

    I won't say he wasn't a corporatist but how does a law that hurts companies, Wage and price fixing help corporations when it didn't. Unless the fact that it hurt the little indipendant companies more then the big ones because they didn't have the cash reserves to sit out during the fixed price periods. I guess I just answered my own question.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    What Nixon himself said was that he didn't believe in the wage and price freeze himself, he was just afraid congress was going force something even worse on him.

    He stated in his memoirs that if nothing else, he proved definitively that wage and price freezes don't work.

  • k2000k||

    Maybe in 20 years will have Obama writing that about his stimulus programs...

  • ||

    wow, that just proves him stupid. It's pretty hard for congress to get up the votes to override a veto. He should have at least tried to do that first.

    It's unfortunate he overestimated the ability of Keynesians to learn from history.

  • ||

    You did answer your own question too. Corporatism is rarely about doing what will *directly* help big corporations and more about doing things that will harm upstart competition more than the big corporation.

  • Number 2||

    "Corporatist" doesn't mean helping corporations. Corporatist is a form of centralized government control of the economy. It differs from socialism in that it purports to control the economy on behalf of all social classes, not just the working class. Fascism is an extreme dictatorial form of corporatism.

  • ||

    "...and when I say Kingdom come, make no mistake, that's what I'm aiming for!"

  • O2||

    caption: one dies on the toilet & the other in it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Several lessons from Nixon's folly remain highly relevant today.


    Besides the one where no matter what History teaches us, economics-illiterate presidents keep going to the same "solutions" others had tried for milenia, with invariably the SAME results:

    "Ranchers stopped shipping their cattle to the market, farmers drowned their chickens, and consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets."

  • ||

    consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets

    does anyone have some supermarket to spare, I couldn't buy none before the shelves were empty. I got a family, and they needs some supermarket real bad.

  • ||

    and I guess if price controls hurt then how are they going to help the medical industry now. They keep claiming price controls and we know from history it doesn't work.

  • Maxxx||

    Where's John to tell us how sucking up to the communist Chinese was more important than fucking over the economy?

  • ||

    at least the debacle had convinced everyone "that wage-price controls are not the answer."

    At this very minute, Krugabe is slaving feverishly over his word-cuisinart, trying to convince America, in twelve hundred words or less, why the Ascended One should have the power to force privately owned businesses to give their employees a twenty five per cent pay increase.

  • ||

    ... otherwise the Aliens would win.

  • In Time of War||

    Hell, at this point I say give 'em a shot.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    E. T. for President.

  • AlmightyJB||

  • WTF||

    The city can’t suspend sidewalk-code enforcement, he said, because of federal rules that fall under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

    Thanks, GHWB!

  • ||

    You can't remove rules in the AWDA, but you can definitely suspend enforcement. Suspending enforcement is not the same as suspending the rules.

  • WTF||

    Chad McCoury, whose fight with the city over flower boxes and patio umbrellas [...]

    Well, he did open a business on Gay Street.

  • AlmightyJB||

    While Columbus certainly has it's share of "gay" streets, oddly enough, Gay Street isn' t one of them.

  • Chupacabra||

    What about Assless Chaps Ave.?

  • ||

    Isn't that over by Redundancy Avenue Street?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, that's where this carry out is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • Brett L||

    Does this seem troublesome to anyone else?

    "PARIS - Germany, France propose collective 'government' for the eurozone led by EU president"

  • BakedPenguin||

    I like a story that Godwins itself.

  • T||

    Not paying much attention back then, can anyone tell me why America actually listened to this claptrap? Was there some enforcement mechanism?

  • AlmightyJB||

    The country was much further to the left back then. Nixon would be called a socialist now by the same party that made him president back then

  • AlmightyJB||

    Mr. Great Society Johnson had preceded him to give you an indication of where things were politically back then.

  • k2000k||

    And even before that we had FDR.

  • ||

    Nixon, like the poster sevo, also bought and spewed the propaganda that the united socialist states of amerika were justified in dropping a couple of nukes to incinerate nearly 300,000 people, mostly children and the elderly, in order to "end the war and save millions of lives."

    Any person who asseverates that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified is a moral scumbag. Any person who asseverates that the bombings "saved millions of lives" is an ignoramus.

    There is no factual support for the proposition that, by incinerating 300,000 people, the US "saved millions of lives." Even several high ranking military officials knew that such asseverations were baseless.

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you think fewer than 300,000 Japanese would have been killed in an invasion?
    At the time those were the choices.

  • O2||

    a large japanese military base should've been targeted.

  • ||

    Harry S. Truman: History's Greatest Monster

  • Jimmy Carter||

    *Ahem*

  • fish||

    Harry S. Truman: History's Greatest Monster
    reply to this

    First among equals!

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    In the WWII part of the overall strategy was to destroy a countries industrial base, thereby limiting the number of arms and munitions that the country could produce. The idea being that in the long term this would have the aggregate effect of limiting the enemy's capabilities.

    Another thing, its not like we had GPS guided munitions back then, if you wanted to bomb a strategic target like a port or a rail yard, you had to drop A LOT of munitions, and even then it was not a sure thing that you would destroy your intended target.

    This was the mindset that led to the selection of the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as targets. From the perspective of Truman and the Higher ups at the war department those cities were valid military targets.

    You can Monday morning quarterback this all you like. But the folks that were responsible for making that decision had some tough factors to take into account. What would be the body count (freindly, enemy and civilian) if we were to mount an amphibious attack on Honshu? What was the destructive power of these atomic weapons?

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Not really making a moral judgement here. But I think that if I were in that position in 1945, knowing what they knew, I might have made the same choice.

  • O2||

    say what u want, but destroying cities, like dresden & the toyoko fire-bombings (which killed more than the nukes), is disgusting & repulsive. it puts us on the level like the rape of nanking. our enemies conduct does NOT define our conduct.

  • Victor||

    What's this "us" shit"?

  • O2||

    sorry, meant "the US". thx

  • ||

    No war has ever been won without killing as many people as possible including civilians. This non-collateral war crap is exactly why we lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and now Afganistan

  • ||

    Two words, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And a few more, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden.

  • DK||

    Simply not true. Plenty of wars have been subject to international law, in which the killing of POWs, civilians, etc is considered a no-no. And it's clearly true that many of these wars have been won. So wars have been won without "killing as many people as possible". It would have been possible to kill POWs and civilians, but restraint was taken.

    Also, why do you say we lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars w/ the Chinese and Soviets. Holding these countries was not the prime concern. And don't forget that the Korean War, for instance, took a massive toll on the Chinese military and shaped the power dynamic in that region for decades. As for Iraq, the invasion was won within a matter of days - sounds pretty successful to me.

    Point being that wars are frequently won even when exercising some level of human decency.

  • ||

    Pleas name them.

  • Jim||

    Every war in history. If wars cannot be won without "killing as many people as possible" including civilians, then the victors of all wars would have completely (or at least attempted to completely) liquidate the populations of the areas they conquered.

    The Allies did not massacre Germans as a matter of policy during WWI, yet they beat them. Even during WWII, we fire-bombed Dresden, but did not do so to other cities. It was certainly POSSIBLE for us to destroy other cities in like fashion, but we CHOSE not to. And we still won. According to you, since it was possible for us to kill more, but we did not, then we must have lost WWII.

    The Ottoman Empire would specifically leave Christian cities intact during their European conquests, so that the children could provide recruits for the jannisary corps.

    The Americans accepted surrenders of English troops during the Revolutionary War. By your theory, the Americans would have lost unless they slaughtered every single Englishman who came into their possession. Your statement is, in fact, one of the most ridiculously untrue things anyone has ever said.

  • ||

    I have to disagree with your statement. Yes there were wars where some cities were saved or by-passed but that was so we could go after more important locations. You phisically can't destroy them all but the ones that are attacked everyone was in harms way and that information gets back to the people in other cities who decide is worth it to let them come here and kill us too. You do mention Revolutionary war well England was much in the same position we were in in vietnam, BTW the Brits did kill civilians also. So I think my argument stands, you kill enough of one side and they will quite.

  • Jim||

    No, you stated quite clearly that as many people as possible must be killed, not as many people as needed to convince the other side to give up, which is a massively smaller number.

    Any war in history in which as many civilians as possible were not completely annihilated (which is nearly every war) refutes your argument. Again, it was possible for us to kill many more Germans than we actually did, but it wasn't necessary.

  • ||

    What was the destructive power of these atomic weapons?

    After Trinity, they knew that. They even knew about secondary deaths from exposure by then.

    And they damn sure knew what they were doing by Nagasaki.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    After Trinity they knew from a physics perspective what would happen, what they did not know is what effect it would have when detonated in a city.

    And after Hiroshima they had only a vague concept of what the first hand BDA was, from 30, 000 feet.

    Understand that I am not trying to justify the decision to drop the first and especially the second one. The context of the decision, esp. one as significant as this one, is important to factor in when passing judgement on the decisions people have made.

  • ||

    And what I'm saying is that they turned a huge piece of desert into fused glass. It's a bit silly to argue they didn't know it was going to fuck up a city and the people in it.

    I'm sort of halfway in the argument. I don't really care to second guess the decision to drop the first one, but I refuse to celebrate it as an "America, FUCK YEAH!" moment either (not that that is what you are doing, but you see it way, way too much.)

  • Zeb||

    "It's a bit silly to argue they didn't know it was going to fuck up a city and the people in it."

    Well, yeah. Wasn't that the point?

  • Col. Kurtz||

    The context of the decision, esp. one as significant as this one, is important to factor in when passing judgement on the decisions people have made.

    I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies!

    I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see.

    We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.

    And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that.

    If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us.

  • Robert||

    I don't understand why this is even controversial. When you want to kill somebody, wouldn't you rather bypass hir bodyguard?

    If I were pursuing a war, I would try to avoid targeting the opposing military establishment to the extent I could do so while defending myself. Otherwise, a country with no military establishment would be invincible, wouldn't they? The military establishment is just the country's bodyguards, and I would probably have no beef with them, they're just hired hands. It's the people at large who are your problem, so kill them. The bodyguards will keep fighting to the last, since it's their only job, but if you kill the people they're guarding, then you actually have a chance of winning.

  • WTF||

    You seem ignorant that WWII was Total War.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I love that game.

  • ||

    The Japanese had been pleading for peace for several months prior to August of 1945. Yes, they did not want to unconditionally surrender as FDR and Truman insisted because they thought that unconditional surrender would mean that the emperor would be removed and face war crimes allegations.

    No, the "rational for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half million or more American lives." Ralph Raico, August 6, 204, Mises.Org, as reprinted at LewRockwell.com

    As historian Raico submits, the worst case scenario, as envisioned by the Pentagon, was 46,000 American lives lost.

    Thus, there were choices. The US government decided to go the mass murdering route.

  • O2||

    another motivation (to use nukes) was the horrendous us casualities on okinawa seemingly forcasting the invasion

  • sarcasmic||

    Some estimates were as high as a million.

  • ||

    No, even the pentagon knew that there would not be the half million or "over a million lives spared" (GHWB in 1991) by dropping the nukes.

    Thus, as a matter of fact, one cannot hide behind the proposition that the us military advocated the nukes because it would save american lives.

    Moreover, numerous high ranking us military officials, including McCarthur, were dead set against the use of the A-bomb.

    Further, we already knew that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not have big time military installations within the city limits.

  • ||

    THere were no credible estimates that a million us lives were saved by dropping the nukes. NONE.

    Furthermore, the Japs were already licked and buried. They were pleading for peace.

    No, there is no credible argument to be made in behalf of mass murdering 300,000 civilians. Particularly if one is a friend of liberty.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Dropping the bombs was a big "Don't fuck with us" message to the Soviet Union as well as a way to force Japan to surrender to the USA directly. The USA had no intention of a shared solution in Japan like in Europe.

  • sarcasmic||

    My understanding is that the estimated casualties were way up there.
    Over twenty thousand were killed taking Iwo Jima. That's just a freaking rock.
    This is the homeland we're talking about, with civilians who were not expected to lay down quietly.

    To me it doesn't seem logical that the casualties would be as low as you say.

    No, there is no credible argument to be made in behalf of mass murdering 300,000 civilians. Particularly if one is a friend of liberty.

    Or if one believes anything that confirms their biases and dismisses anything that does not.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    This is the homeland we're talking about, with civilians who were not expected to lay down quietly.


    NOBODY would lay down quietly facing the prospect of an unconditional surrender, you fool. NOT YOU, NOT ME, not them.

    What prolonged the war with Japan unnecessarily was the requirement that the nation surrendered unconditionally. Wouldn't YOU fight to the end? Yet the bloodthirsty hawks would want you or me to believe that there was no other choice besides total surrender or total destruction.

  • sarcasmic||

    There were reasons for wanting unconditional surrender.

  • Zeb||

    OM, I would like to think that you or I would not surrender quietly in such a situation, but history is full of examples of populations relatively quietly acquiescing to the rule of a conqueror. France comes immediately to mind. In fact, I would argue that throughout most of history, it really hasn't mattered to most people which group of assholes claims rule over them. There are more important things to worry about.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Zeb,

    [...]but history is full of examples of populations relatively quietly acquiescing to the rule of a conqueror.France comes immediately to mind.


    France surrendered to the Germans under a ceasefire and with an offer, not under unconditional surrender. It is interesting that you mentioned France, as the French declared war on Germany first, yet the Germans did not seek unconditional surrender from the French, firebombed and razed half of her cities and executed her generals. Makes one think about the moral principles driving the Germans vis a vis the Americans'.

  • Robert||

    OM, I would like to think that you or I would not surrender quietly in such a situation, but history is full of examples of populations relatively quietly acquiescing to the rule of a conqueror. France comes immediately to mind. In fact, I would argue that throughout most of history, it really hasn't mattered to most people which group of assholes claims rule over them. There are more important things to worry about.


    Exactly, which is why killing a good chunk of them is a good way to get them to submit. If there were a way to torture them instead, that'd be even better.

  • k2000k||

    And why would the United States not demand unconditional surrender if they know they could win complete domination? This is real politik we are talking about, game of thrones stuff. When it comes to geo-politics what is morally right and wrong doesn't always equate to what is good for the nation. The US wanted to be sure that they would not have to fight Japan again in the next hundred years and assure their dominance of the pacific ocean. Morally right or wrong that was the options available to them.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    One could argue that the Japanese military junta, with their interpretation of bushido and all, had zero intentions of surrendering in any way shape or form.

  • DK||

    What a crock of shit. The Joint Chiefs of Staffs released studies on this invasion using casualty rates similar to those seen in the Pacific campaign. From Operation Olympic (invasion of Kyushu) alone, the Joint Chiefs estimated 450,000 casualties and 100k fatalities in a 90 day campaign. From Operation Coronet, you'd have 1.2M casualties and 250k fatalities over 90 days. Total of 1.65M casualties and 350k fatalities. And this is just the Allied numbers. The Japanese numbers were way higher as the Chiefs of Staff assumed they would continue to be killed instead of becoming POWs.

    Department of War Secretary Henry Stimson's numbers ranged from 2-4M casualties and 400-800k fatalities on the Allied side. The estimates assumed 5-10M Japanese fatalities. Also, former Prez Herbert Hoover estimated hundreds of thousands of fatalities following his discussions with Truman. Also, 500k purple hearts were manufactured for the conflict, which are still being awarded today. So it stands to reason that someone thought there would be need for all of them.

    Granted, there certainly were lower estimates for casualties. However, to assert that there were no credible estimates of higher fatalities is absurd.

    Also, the Japanese may have already lost the war, but the policy of unconditional surrender pissed them off. The Japanese high command wanted to make the war costly enough to the U.S. that it would be willing to make concessions for peace.

  • k2000k||

    That was the plan of the Japanese all along. They knew that they could not win a long term war against the United States, hell one of the reasons they attacked pearl habor was because we stopped shipping them oil that was being used in China, they wanted to make the prospects of fighting a total war totally repugnent to American sensibilities. In fact China has the same attitude now, one of their leading generals came out and said that fighting the United States would be like throwing an egg at the brick wall, however, if you hit their military hard enough fast enough you could create a situation where the Americans will sue for peace with somewhat favorable conditions after a short war, rather than engage in a long term war.

  • ||

    Even if all the estimates of American casualties were sub 50k, that's still 50k American casualties.

    The atomic bomb saved 50k friendly lives. Whether it was a moral or worthwhile trade is another question all together, but as a matter of fact Fat Man and Little Boy saved some American lives.

  • ||

    It appears that the statement of which you speak was made by me, i.e., "there were no credible estimates that a million us lives were saved by dropping the nukes. NONE."

    Thus, your assertion regarding my statement, that "to assert that there were no credible estimates of higher fatalities is absurd" is A COLOSSAL STRAWMAN FIB. You know that. Any person reading this thread can see that.

    I did not assert that there were no higher estimates than the one I cited. I know that it would, in your view, help your narrative if I asserted as you asseverated. That was not the case.

    However, let us examine the folks / sources upon whom you rely. Herbert Hoover's discussion with Truman? Somehow, someway, Herbert big government statist Hoover's discussion with Harry big government statist Truman is somehow a credible source? Given the many failures of Herbert Hoover, his fondness for big government and for the regulatory state, Coolidge's assessment of Hoover as one not to be trusted, how could you cite Hoover, in good conscience, as a credible estimate that the US would lose half a million lives?

    So, if Hoover's belief that the us would suffer 500,000 dead in an invasion of Japan is predicated upon his meeting with Truman, then your position hinges upon (1) Hoover was repeating just what Truman told him and that he was not embellishing the narrative and (2) Truman was in possession of a credible estimate speculating that 500,000 lives would be lost in an invasion.

    Its not like these two parasites had established a reputation for truth and integrity. Truman's justifications for committing the war crimes fluctuated with the frequency Mitt Romney changes his positions. Several of his advisers have acknowledged that Truman had no empirical basis to assert that the dropping the nukes saved half a million us lives. For example, Admiral William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff, said:

    "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.....We had no reason to believe this course of action actually saved 500,000 lives."

    The fact that 500,000 purple hearts MAY have been manufactured, in and of itself, does not lend any assistance to your argument. The fact that such an amount of awards were produced does not thereby mean that there were, in fact, CREDIBLE, estimates of 500,000 deaths. Simple logic.

    That some in the employ of the state, particularly those in the military and the military industrial complex, had forecast the loss of 500,000 us lives, in and of itself, does not mean that such forecasts were credible. To assert such, one displays a frightening level of genuflection to Leviathan, a willing acceptance of that which is peddled and propagandized by known prevaricators, the very cess pool of humanity.

    Why would an intelligent friend of liberty accord some kind of credibility to self serving statists?

  • DK||

    No. You said there were no credible estimates. I provided some credible estimates. No straw man here.

    Let me see if I can parse the rest of your response. Hoover's conversations w/ Truman don't count as credible because they're both statists. I noticed that you didn't bother to respond to the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Stimson estimates. Should I also presume that those aren't credible because they're statists?

    Then you go ahead and reference a quote by Gen. Leahy. As a ranking member of the armed forces, isn't he also a statist? So why is his number credible? You can't have it both ways.

    It's fine enough to say that there were estimates of low casualties. One should also recognize that there were estimates of high casualties. And there's really no way of determining ex post facto how high the number would actually have been. Statements about what could have happened in history are non-falsifiable.

    Now, let's turn to epistemic considerations. Why does the fact that statists claim something make it not credible? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that, because someone is wrong on something (here, political philosophy), their opinion is not credible on other things. This is a ridiculous notion. It flies in the face of everything we know about specialization - people can be extremely credible in one area and not at all believable in another. So statists can have the wrong political philosophy and still have credible analyses of military casualties. Moreover, war being the domain of the state, I wouldn't be surprised to find that their analyses are superior. At any rate, I see no reason to denounce someone's credibility on one issue due to their credibility on another. The burden of proof seems to fall on you here.

    I'm not "genuflecting to Leviathan" at all here. The simple fact of the matter is that WWII was an engagement the likes of which had never been seen. It was fought with weapons capable of causing unimaginable (at that point) destruction. The only outcome possible would be a massive loss of life. I'll repeat that - whether or not the atomic bombings occurred, massive numbers of civilians would have been killed. I'm sure that, if Operation Downfall had actually taken place, we'd be arguing about the estimated casualties from the aborted plan to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the conclusion would be the same - war is nasty. People get killed. You can't pretend otherwise.

    I think you need to get past this "statists are evil period" hangup you seem to have going on. I'm sure you have all kinds of mistaken notions floating around in your mind. So do they. I hardly think that makes them terrible people or their thoughts and opinions, on everything, unworthy of consideration. It's such staunch refusal to acknowledge other modes of thinking that makes your breed of libertarianism (which is what the public associates w/ it) so unappealing to the rest of the world.

  • ||

    First, I will once again refer to the statement I made in my 3:06 pm post. The entirety of my statement is, once again, "there were no credible estimates that a million us lives were saved by dropping the nukes. NONE."

    Can you at least acknowledge that which is right here on this thread? Can you at least start your argument by accurately stating that which you oppose? It is intellectual honesty. Distorting another's argument is not favored in legitimate debate. It can hardly be described as a winning formula.

    Admiral Leahy was indeed a statist and nothing I wrote suggested otherwise. But it is absurd to argue that I can not cite Admiral Leahy's position in support of my asseveration that there were no credible estimates that a million us lives would be saved by dropping the nukes.

    Yes, given Admiral Leahy's life, I will not blindly accept what he says as the truth. However, in the context of this particular situation, where one statist (and let us not forger there were many other statists who (a) did not favor dropping the nukes and (b) did not think that a million lives would be lost or even a half a million lives) asserted that there was no credible basis to support the proposition that failure to engage in the single worst war crime in the history of the world would prevent the deaths of a million or half a million soldiers and other statists claimed that there would be half a million such deaths, there is nothing untoward / unfair / or inconsistent about my reference to the former.

    I have never argued that each and every statement made by a life-time tax feeder is a lie. Likewise, I have never argued that each and every act undertaken by a public sector leech is evil.

    However, I do think that there is ample evidence to conclude that governments lie, cheat and steal. After all, it is government that coerces and kills. It is government that has mass murdered hundreds of millions of people in the last century and a half. In so executing their mass murders, such governments had to employ certain types of individuals. Such individuals have lied, cheated, stolen, kidnapped, raped and murdered in behalf of the almighty state.

    It is not the anarcho-capital-individualist folk that engage in the aforsaid mischief. Force attracts people of low character. It is human nature.

    Thus, there is nothing wrong with starting with the proposition that, as a general rule, the word of a statist is not to be given the same credibility as that of one who rejects coercion. You may not like that and you may think such a presumption is unappealing to the rest of the world; many others recognize it as a reality from their own experiences.

    Where one group of statists support a position which would permit the military to employ a new weapons system certain to mass murder on a scale never seen before and other statists oppose use of such a weapon, the position of the former necessarily involves GREATER PROJECTION OF STATE POWER AND COERCION whereas the position of the latter necessarily calls for LESSER PROJECTION OF STATE POWER AND COERCION. The former group wants to further flex the muscles of the state; they see even bigger and brighter days ahead for the manufacturing of more such weapons and the opportunity to brandish them and use them.

    Hence, it is perfectly acceptable to cite the positions of the statists who did not favor use of the nukes and who called into question the basis upon which those in favor of using the weapon relied in SPECULATING how many troops would be lost.

    You, sir, appear to be laboring under the delusion that those who steal from you, confiscate your property, spy on you, break into your home, committ mass murder and lie to you are somehow condign of being accorded the same respect and credibility as those who do not. It is utter folly.

    Sure, just because Truman was a mass murdering political hack almost all of his adult life does not mean that everything he ever said was a lie. (His adolescent hissy fit regarding one critic's assessment of his daughter's piano playing was probably genuine).

    But, I also stated the FACT that Truman changed the goal posts regarding justification of dropping the nukes. The point is he was a politician-a power hungry piece of shit who would say and do anything to justify his deeds. So, how can one accord much, if any, credibility to what Hoover alleges Truman told him?

    Thus, given the fact that Harry Truman was a statist who believed government should get bigger and that it should confiscate more and more property from the producing class, that he was assisted in his rise by the infamous Pendergast gang and that he changed his tune so often on why he opted to committ the mass murder, why would anybody whine about giving the statists a fair shake?

    Statists may be expert at ruthlessness and consolidating power and committing mass murder. They may be expert at shaking down their fellow men. They may be expert at confiscating your property, garnishing your paycheck and levying your bank account.

    Statists may also be expert at making war. Some may excel in planning and operations and logistics.

    One item which statists have employed masterfully is propaganda, including disinformation. I will grant that some statists are superb propagandists.

    Thus, one would be a fool to accept, at face value, the words, statements, plans, etc, promulgated by a statist. The endgame of statism is total control. Do you have enough of an open mind to recognize that Caesar and his favorites tend to lie and do anything they possibly can in order to further enrich and empower Caesar?

    Other modes of thought? How about recognizing that there was a choice Truman had in August 1945. He did not have to drop the nukes. Nor did massive amounts of civilians have to perish at that point.

    Perhaps if you opened your mind you might accept the FACT that the US had already won and that the Japanese were licked.

  • DK||

    Sorry. Didn't see the "U.S." in your assertion. Though I don't understand how it really matters. You bitch and moan about 300k civilians being killed by nukes. And I provided estimates claiming possibly millions of dead Japanese, many of them civilians. From a utilitarian standpoint, it's obvious that the bombings should have occurred. Your argument that the numbers are twelve kinds of fucked up/American lives are more precious just hits the usual "how do you establish the utility calculus" problem of utilitarianism. The argument from an individual rights perspective is quite a bit more difficult. But it's also difficult to make the argument for a wholesale invasion of Japan from an individual rights perspective.

    I sadly don't have enough time to respond to all of your points. Suffice it to say that I agree that governments are coercive by nature and that it's best to give them as little power as necessary. I think that you and I disagree with the definition of "necessary". I believe that defense is one of the few justified roles of government. Particularly when that defense is being employed in the most deadly war in human history against mass murdering, repressive regimes. The simple fact of the matter is that, without the massive mobilization of the U.S. military, the outcome would have been much different and probably a lot less friendly to lovers of freedom.

    I'm going to be pedantic, because it seems to be necessary. The U.S. had not already won the war. The Japanese had not surrendered. The U.S. policy of unconditional surrender, combined with the Japanese throne's refusal to be deposed, meant the war would continue. The Japanese still had at least 20 divisions, 2000 aircraft, and a viable navy to defend against the U.S. assault. True - the Japanese were fucked, would lose, and knew it. But that sure as hell didn't mean the U.S. had already won. The Japanese plan was to make the war too costly to win. Future tense.

    I think you might be the one who needs to open your mind a bit. I flirted with anarcho-capitalism when I was in high school. Past those sophomoric days, it's pretty obvious that such a system is untenable. And it's rather unfortunate that so many anarchos will not give any ground to minarchists like myself, who would otherwise agree with them on just about everything. I guess it's the difference between living in the real world and a false reality. Best of luck with that.

  • ||

    This ignores the FACT that even after the second atom bomb several Japanese generals attempted a coup against the Imperial leader in an attempt to keep fighting. So not even after bombing they did not want to surrender. this would have required a third bomb and a fourth and as many as were needed. BTW my step-father was a prisoner in Japan and they were very happy when the bombs fell. They weren't sure what fell but they knew it was big because after the second one the guards disappeared.

  • sarcasmic||

    this would have required a third bomb and a fourth and as many as were needed.

    That would have sucked since only two were built.

  • ||

    "That would have sucked since only two were built"
    Agreed but at the beginning of the war we had none and by then we knew how to make more.

  • sarcasmic||

    we knew how to make more

    Making nukes is comparatively easy.
    The pain in the ass is coming up with the stuff that goes "boom".
    That requires first enriching the uranium (Fat Boy), and if you want plutonium (Tall Boy) you must set up a reactor and figure out what to do with all the heat.
    It would have taken months or more to make another bomb.

  • ||

    Little Boy was the uranium bomb dropped on August 6th. It was a gun-design device considered so reliable it wasn't tested in advance. Fat Man was the plutonium implosion device detonated on August 9th, the same design as the original test bomb detonated a month earlier.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    No, four were built. Gadget was used in the Trinity test, but an unnamed fourth bomb was available. It probably would have landed on Tokyo, if used.

  • WTF||

    The issue is apparently not as cut and dried as you indicate.

    Barton Bernstein is a professor of history at Stanford University. The author note with one of his recently published essays identifies him as "a leading revisionist scholar." He is less absolute than his colleagues on some issues. He now holds, for example, that use of the atomic bomb was "probably unnecessary."[6] (Others in the revisionist lineup say it was absolutely unnecessary.) His major theme is that US casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan in 1945 were grossly exaggerated. In fact, it was Professor Bernstein who -- on the basis of his reinterpretation of a June 18, 1945, entry in the diary of Adm. William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff -- persuaded Air and Space Museum Director Harwit to mark the US casualty estimate down to 63,000. That led to Congressional and public outrage and eventually to Dr. Harwit's resignation.[7]
  • ||

    As historian Raico submits, the worst case scenario, as envisioned by the Pentagon, was 46,000 American lives lost.

    That strikes me as incredibly low, seeing as we lost 6800 killed on Iwo Jima and over 12000 on Okinawa.

  • ||

    Why?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    "a large japanese military base should've been targeted."

    Nagasaki was a backup site. Kokura, with major military installations, had to be cancelled.

    Hiroshima was chosen because it was relatively undamaged, so an accurate damage assessment could be taken.

    In addition, warning leaflets were dropped over the cities days in advance, warning people to evacuate.

    Admittedly, and aerial demonstration would have been better.

    Of options that did not involve Japanese surrender or a plain ceasefire, the atomic bombings were probably the least deadly option.

  • tarran||

    Most wars don't end with one side invading and crushing the other...

    There are these things called peace treaties that are negotiated by the warring parties.

    It's one reason that the U.S. retained it's independence after getting its but kicked in land fighting during the war of 1812.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tarran,

    There are these things called peace treaties that are negotiated by the warring parties.


    This is something the bloodthirsty chickenhawks quickly dismiss, despite the fact that WWI ended with a ceasefire, not with the total destruction of Germany.

  • Brett L||

    Gee, you don't think that had anything to do with how WWII was fought, do you?

  • O2||

    damn sure had no impact tho on the outcomes of korea nor vietnem

  • sarcasmic||

    not with the total destruction of Germany.

    Normally you're not one for straw man arguments.
    Japan was not totally destroyed, and many German cities were.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    Japan was not totally destroyed, and many German cities were.


    Japan's most important cities were FIREBOMBED; a predominately Christian city (Nagasaki) was RAZED. Most of her industrial base was DEMOLISHED. Ask the Japanese if they didn't feel their country was destroyed.

    And, again: Germany asked and obtained a CEASEFIRE in WWI, her cities left INTACT. Japan was almost leveled by the US despite the fact that Japan had not bombed a single US city, only military targets including Pearl Harbor.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Not for lack of trying.

  • ||

    Its a funny thing - wars that end without the complete defeat of one side or the other tend to not be as over as people thought.

    WWI ended without any real fighting in Germany, and, whaddaya know - the Germans were up for another round as soon as they raised up another crop of soldiers.

    That's the biggest example, but they can be multiplied.

    The first atom bomb, I don't have a problem with, really. We had long ago crossed the line of "area bombing" cities, and the raid that dropped the first atom bomb wasn't even the most destructive such raid.

    The second one, I dunno.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm with you there.
    The first one accomplished its goal.
    The second one was completely unnecessary.

  • ||

    read my earlier post about the Japanese generals having a coup to not surrender after the second.

  • sarcasmic||

    I saw that. By accomplishing its goal I meant the leadership and civilians were ready to quit.

  • ||

    No one really knows what wouldhave happened if the US had not dropped the bombs. And that's just the way it is. Regardless of how many American lives it saved, 50,000 or 1,000,000, it was worth it.

  • ||

    Being ready to quit is different from being allowed to quite especially when you consider caste system in place in Japan at the time that would not allow for disagreement. Well you could but then you were beheaded.

  • ||

    Do you know that there were several hundred americans who died because of the a-bombs?

  • ||

    Sad but better than 50k.

  • Jim||

    So are we going with the idea that all life is not equal, and that, in fact, it is OK to massacre Japanese if it saves Americans?

    I'm not one for tribalism. A Japanese life is worth just as much, no more, no less, than an American.

  • Robert||

    Don't you know what war is? You kill the other guys!

  • Jim||

    Assuming that 1) it was just and right to extend the war in order to get unconditional surrender, and 2) the "other guys" includes random men, women, & children.

    You know what would have saved the most lives? Stating point-blank that we'd let the Emperor stay in power (which we refused to do when they asked, but which we wound up doing anyway), wouldn't interfere with their polity, but they have to accept the fact that they'd been booted out of everywhere and were now confined to the home islands. They'd have jumped on that deal, and a lot of innocent people would be alive today.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    Do you think fewer than 300,000 Japanese would have been killed in an invasion?
    At the time those were the choices.


    Yes, there WAS a choice: allowing the Japanese to surrender under mutually-agreed conditions.

    Nobdy can say with any degree of reason (but with plenty of chauvinistic chest-thumping, though) that unconditional surrender or total destruction were the only options.

  • sarcasmic||

    Unconditional surrender was wanted because of the humiliating cultural implications.
    This was about punishment and revenge as much as ending the war.

  • Zeb||

    And (whether it was on balance good or not), it worked. The Japanese were humiliated and forced to change their culturally bellicose ways.

  • ||

    Suppose the germans had dropped a nuke on London. Do you think that the responsible parties would not be charged with war crimes?

    Dropping a nuke on a city is, in and of itself, a war crime. No grey areas. Sorry sophists.

  • ||

    If the Germans had dropped a nuke on London (and possibly Moscow), they might have won the war.

    In that case they definitely would not have been charged with war crimes.

    *Not that "War Crime" isn't an oxymoron or anything...

  • k2000k||

    Your right Old Mexican. But the US had a reason, whether right or wrong, to demand unconditional surrender. It virtually handed Japan over as a protectorate to the US denying the Soviets the chance to possibly move in and occupy parts of Japan. Towards the end of the war the US was already planning for the eventual global conflict with Russia and that plan was containment.

  • ||

    Perhaps we should have exercised some foresight. Perhaps we should not have insisted upon unconditional surrender, the position insisted upon by the three great socialists, FDR, Churchill and Stalin.

    Suppose the Japs were spared the firebombing, the nukes and all of the other war crimes and were not treated as we treated Germany after WWI? Suppose we agreed to help the Japs fight off the Soviets?

    One could argue that a strong Japan could ward off the Soviets and exercise enough influence to keep the Maoists from ever coming to power. The Japanese could have prevented the Maoist slaughters.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Surrender was offered. The Japanese did not accept. Of course, conditions weren't that good, but the Japanese didn't even try to make an acceptable counter-offer.

  • Jim||

    Bullshit. In the end, all they wanted was to not have us try their war criminals, and to have assurances that the emperor would be left alone. We wound up doing the latter anyway. It was our insistance on unconditional surrender that was unreasonable.

    By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[23] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand—the proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; whereas at this time the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.
  • k2000k||

    This is bogus libertymike. The estimated invasion of japan was expected to roughly double the total American casualties that we suffered during WWII, and millions of Japanese would have perished. Just look at Iwo Jima, 99% of the Japanese were killed, or Okinawa around 85% of the Japanese were killed and 24% of the Americans who fought there were killed in action or died for non-combat reasons. Up to 150,000 civilians were killed in Okinawa. Okinawa alone, the high end being 292,000 people, resulted in more people dying than the dropping of on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at the high end 246,000 people. The atomic bombings were a travesty, a monstrosety, something that should never happen again. But to think that the invasion of Japan or the continual firebombing of Tokyo would have been less worse is simply not true.

  • ||

    No, that which is bogus is parroting propaganda propagated by the state and its minions.

    Upon what specific basis do you argue that Mr. Barton J. Berstein was wrong? If you are going to assert that which I have set forth is bogus, make some effort to impeach the works of Bernstein or the words of Admiral Leahy.

  • Jim||

    Popular culture (outside of the GOP) tends to depict Nixon as a shit-eating scumbag of a president. It's good to be reminded once in awhile that yes, he really was a shit-eating scumbag and he really was that bad, no liberal Hollywood fantasy needed.

  • ||

    "Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever. The only one who's changed is me. I've become bitter, and let's face it, crazy over the years. And once I'm swept into office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat. And I'll go into people's houses at night and wreck up the place! Muhuhahahaha!"

  • Jim||

    I always hated the fact that all the "celebrities" preserved in jars in the future just happen to be late 20th, early 21st century celebrities.

  • ||

    Got to keep it topical for the hipster dipshits.

  • ||

    That very episode had every US president as heads in jars, so your assertion is already untrue*. Come on, Jim. Stay focused.

    * It is, however, mostly true.

    George Washington: So telleth, Bender. Whateth happen to your body?

    Bender: I hawked it.

    George Washington: Hawked it? Why wouldst thou do that?

    Bender: Same reason you hawked your teeth.

    George Washington: Ahh. Booze money.

  • Jim||

    Quite correct on both counts: hipster douchebags and I forgot about the presidents.

    As if anybody would be into Beck 1,000 years in the future. People are already not into him now.

  • ||

    "We thought you only cared about cans of anchovies and stuffy old songs about the buttocks."

  • ||

    "Whoa, dog. Just cold chill. You know, when I'm upset, I write a song about it. Like when I wrote Devil's Haircut, I was feeling really...what's that song about?"

  • Zeb||

    The show is not actually made in the future. It is largely satire based on contemporary culture. The early 21st century would also be the time when heads started to be preserved, so having celebrities from the past doesn't make much sense either.

  • ||

    Implying that Futurama is intended to be an accurate depiction of the future...

  • mr simple||

    I remember my body. Flabby, pasty skin, riddled with phlebitis - a good republican body. God, I loved it.

  • hot women||

    eeeuuuwwww

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Pop culture gets it right occasionally

  • ||

    "PARIS - Germany, France propose collective 'government' for the eurozone led by EU president"

    Will their first official act be a declaration of war on the Swiss?

  • fish||

    If they want to get their asses kicked right out of the chute!

  • ||

    No can do. Busy getting their asses kicked by Ghadaffiy.

  • WTF||

    Weeks, not months.

  • O2||

    that was the command changeover sherlock

  • WTF||

    So now we are not involved, even though we control NATO and even OBAMA claims we are "leading from behind" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean? You really are a fucking idiot.

  • O2||

    i never wrote we're not involved einstein.

  • WTF||

    So then my original point holds, fuckstain.

  • Brett L||

    Great minds, etc.

  • Brett L||

    Don't they usually invade North Africa as a warmup?

  • O2||

    u mean like libya?

  • ||

    Just like Korea and Vietnam they too were originally Frances self created problem. why do we keep following them into battle.

  • ||

    I forget who said it was better to have the French in front of you or behind you, or words to that effect.

  • Robert||

    Darn, I keep thinking about old funny man Ted Healy when I see your byline, sorry.

  • ||

    There are plenty of people who know without question that price controls are a disastrous thing to do, yet they have no problem somehow believing that price controls in HEALTH CARE will somehow be different. wtf?

  • AlmightyJB||

    If it ever starts making sense that's probably not a good sign for you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: califronian,

    yet they have no problem somehow believing that price controls in HEALTH CARE will somehow be different. wtf?


    Fools will always believe that their foolish ideas will somehow work where others failed, despite the laws of economics.

  • O2||

    its insurance regulation not price controls.

  • ||

    I can't tell if you're being funny or not.

    If not, you DO know that the law requires the health czar to review and deny "unreasonable" price changes right?

  • ||

    yay for Poe's Law.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: califronian,

    I can't tell if you're being funny or not.


    Double asshole there is an economics-illiterate fool.

    That means he's not being funny.

  • DJF||

    But which EU President, they don’t have any shortage of Presidents

    President of the European Council, Van Rompuy?

    President of the European Commission, Barroso?

    President of the Council of the European Union, a rotating job now held for six months by Poland?

  • Brett L||

    I'm pretty sure Sarko and Merkel will swap it back and forth for the foreseeable future.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Something about Sarkozy and Merkel swapping just made me throw up in my mouth a little

  • ||

    If she's good enough for Bush, she's good enough for Sarkozy.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

  • Jim||

    The men don't know, but the little girls understand.

  • Brett L||

    As long as I get Mrs. Sarkozy out of the deal, I'm okay with it.

  • Number 2||

    And what exactly was the constitutional basis for the President or Congress dictating wages and prices on transactions?

  • ||

    general welfare commerce clause mumble mumble

  • Gibby||

    Those first three words are obsolete.

  • ||

    I bet you they are pretty shaky on the concept of "clause" as well.

  • Commerce Clause||

    Here I come to save the day!

  • obama||

    yea! big smooches

  • Number 2||

    I should have known that was coming...

    But even in the most expansive reading of those clauses, how can the federal government possibly dictate every single wage and price in the economy? And based on what delegated standards?

    In retrospect, it is astounding that a lawsuit challenging the freeze wasn't filed the very next day. It goes to show you how acclimated we were to government controlling the economy in the late 60s/early 70s that no one even thought to question whether the feds could do that.

    I've got to believe that if Obama tried that today, there'd be litigation filed before the ink was dry.

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • yelly||

  • ||

    Richard Nixon was probably the worst President the United States has experienced. His actions and belief in Keynesian economics (removal from the gold standard as defined by Bretton Woods)set the world onto a path of perpetual inflation (and now government default).

    I currently hold Geo Bush as the second worst President and his father is number 3 (quit a family legacy)and I'm sad to say that the were Republicans....You wonder why the Tea Party does not trust the Republican establishment? Look at the results

  • Orlando Magic||

    not bad

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement