What are you currently reading?

[Randall Flagg]

I started The Hobbit recently, and plan to read The Lord of the Rings. Hope it's as good as I hear.

[Trettioåtta]

I started The Hobbit recently, and plan to read The Lord of the Rings. Hope it's as good as I hear.

 

The Hobbit is good, LOTR is not - it is so so so boring in parts and they break into song for no ###### reason all the damn time

[fan2456]

If you can put aside his politics if you hate him, I've read most of Newt Gingrich's historical fictions. He is an historian by education and an intelligent man. They are good and informative reads. Really enjoyed the Gettysburg trilogy, and it has peeked my interest in reading straight history books on the subject after I finnish my current list.

Edited April 22, 2012 by fan2456

[darksabre]

If you can put aside his politics if you hate him, I've read most of Newt Gingrich's historical fictions. He is an historian by education and an intelligent man. They are good and informative reads. Really enjoyed the Gettysburg trilogy, and it has peeked my interest in reading straight history books on the subject after I finnish my current list.

 

As much as I dislike him (and all politicians) he seems to be a bright guy. I was unaware of this body of work so I'll have to check it out.

[darksabre]

Today's SMBC coming is strangely timely to this thread.

 

[5th line wingnutt]

You're still confusing economics with politics. A parliamentary system with responsible parties does not mean there is also a command economy. And all modernized western democracies have some kind of constraint, be it a constitution or a common law system.

 

Since the post in question is not about politics or economics, I am at a loss. I did not mention a command economy, I wrote that they were "command oriented". Most western democracies have constitutions that do not contain much in the way of restraints. The U.S. constitution is no longer intrerperted as if the federal government has much in the way of restraints. Finally, how is common law a restraint? BTW, I am speaking only of common law in England and U.S., I know nothing of common law outside the English speaking world.

[Marvelo]

The NY Post

[5th line wingnutt]

He didn't know exactly what to do, neither did anybody else. Again, economics is a social science for a reason, economic theories are theories and not laws for a reason. Designing economic policy is not the same thing as designing a bridge.

 

If he had studied economic history he would have known what to do. Every economic down turn prior to the new deal ended after a year or two of government inaction.

 

The proper action was inaction.

[darksabre]

If he had studied economic history he would have known what to do. Every economic down turn prior to the new deal ended after a year or two of government inaction.

 

The proper action was inaction.

 

That wasn't an option for Roosevelt. The inaction of Hoover was what got Roosevelt elected. He had no choice but to do something. It was the will of the people. If he hadn't created the New Deal the entire government might have been overthrown by militant activist groups like the Bonus Army.

 

Whether or not Roosevelt's policies were the right answer, inaction might very well have been much worse.

[5th line wingnutt]

That wasn't an option for Roosevelt. The inaction of Hoover was what got Roosevelt elected. He had no choice but to do something. It was the will of the people. If he hadn't created the New Deal the entire government might have been overthrown by militant activist groups like the Bonus Army.

 

Whether or not Roosevelt's policies were the right answer, inaction might very well have been much worse.

 

Well, maybe, maybe not. Hoover was from the progressive wing of the Republican Party. While he did not favor direct welfare to individuals, he did some stuff with the aim of ending the depression (mostly misguided, IMHO). He tried, informally, to keep wages and prices high (a policy FDR followed). He signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. He was a prime mover in the creation of the National Credit Corporation, and when it failed he signed into law the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. He presided over a huge tax increase, and deported a lot of Mexicans. There was also the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.

 

I will leave it to you whether this is something or nothing.

 

Ironically FDR campaigned on the idea that Hoover was spending way too much money. Then he doubled down, or more, on Hoover’s policies and spending.

 

I confess I know little of the bonus Army. Were they really a threat to overthrow the government? I skimmed the Wikipedia article. Seems they were about getting paid. If you overthrow the government who is going to pay you? Congress eventually gave them some money and most of them went away. I found out Eisenhower was involved which I had not known.

 

Speaking of Eisenhower, he wrote a memoir of his experiences in Europe during WWII: Crusade in Europe. I read it decades ago and it was pretty good. Ike had to manage some pretty strong personalities while he was the commander in Europe including FDR at home, Churchill in London, and field commanders like Patton, Montgomery, et al, and also De Gaulle. He had to make the crucial go/no go decision on D-Day.

 

And…as one more aside I bought a book about ten years ago called The New Dealers’ War by Thomas Fleming. Somehow it has never made it to the top of my queue. I may have to read it after finishing the four different books I have going now. I have been slowly finishing my “half read” stack and made a pledge to myself not to start any new books until I finish. Another book on my “to read” shelf is For the Survival of Democracy by Alonzo Hamby, subtitled Franklin Roosevelt and the World Crisis of the 1930s.

[MattPie]

You're really selling decades of economic research short. And if you really think government doesn't have a major effect on economy, I'm not sure what to tell you. We split two countries in half in the 20th century -- Germany and Korea. In each case, both halves were identical in terms of culture and demographics. The difference was government. And in each case, one half of Germany/Korea ended up way better off than the other half. The part where government made a difference in the economic well-being of each country is as obvious as, well, gravity.

 

FWIW, he did caveat that in non-command economies (like Western democracy) the government doesn't have much effect. Those two examples above are quintessential examples command economies so they don't really count.

 

I figured (in my very layman understanding) that the government can't do a lot to help the economy, but it can surely screw it up. But not even close to how badly banks can screw up the economy. If you notice,several of the larger depression/recessions have been directly related to banks getting greedy and using unsound financial practices.

[darksabre]

 

 

FWIW, he did caveat that in non-command economies (like Western democracy) the government doesn't have much effect. Those two examples above are quintessential examples command economies so they don't really count.

 

I figured (in my very layman understanding) that the government can't do a lot to help the economy, but it can surely screw it up. But not even close to how badly banks can screw up the economy. If you notice,several of the larger depression/recessions have been directly related to banks getting greedy and using unsound financial practices.

 

And that tends to lead to the question of "what is the government's role in banking, wall street, and the business sector?" That's where the argument that the government matters comes into play. The two common paths from that point seem to be whether or not you believe the government should have more or less control over those institutions. Conservative Laissez Faire argues for minimal government regulation while the more liberal argument is that these institutions cannot be trusted to function in the best interests of the people without strict government regulation. Myself, I think I fall towards the latter, but time and further learning may change that. At this time though I believe a hands off approach is naive.

[TrueBlueGED]

And that tends to lead to the question of "what is the government's role in banking, wall street, and the business sector?" That's where the argument that the government matters comes into play. The two common paths from that point seem to be whether or not you believe the government should have more or less control over those institutions. Conservative Laissez Faire argues for minimal government regulation while the more liberal argument is that these institutions cannot be trusted to function in the best interests of the people without strict government regulation. Myself, I think I fall towards the latter, but time and further learning may change that. At this time though I believe a hands off approach is naive.

 

At the risk of oversimplifying things, to me, it's just a value judgment--there is no "best for everyone" answer. Simple logic really...if there was one approach that made things better for everybody, then that approach would always be taken and there would be little to no argument about economic policy. A lot of economic arguments are just arguments about divergent values veiled in a fallacy of a "best policy" debate.

[darksabre]

 

 

At the risk of oversimplifying things, to me, it's just a value judgment--there is no "best for everyone" answer. Simple logic really...if there was one approach that made things better for everybody, then that approach would always be taken and there would be little to no argument about economic policy. A lot of economic arguments are just arguments about divergent values veiled in a fallacy of a "best policy" debate.

 

I would agree with that.

[Eleven]

Bringing it back around to books: I'm finding that lately (last 2-3 years), the stuff I buy online on recommendations (usually through the book review sections of numerous newspapers) disappoint me. They sit on shelves, half-read, for a long time.

 

Once upon a time, I used to go to bookstores. I could take that same list of recommendations, read a few pages and decide. Now, I'm impulsive, buy off of amazon.com, and I'm left with unread books. Even books billed as "exciting" and literary (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is an example that immediately comes to mind) just sit there after a couple hundred pages.

 

I realize that Talking Leaves doesn't have the greatest selection, and if I drive out to the 'burbs to Barnes & Noble, well, they're also limited by space (even if it's a LOT more space). But I have more success even in an airport bookstand than I do online. I've discovered more great books in bookstores than I ever have online or by reading reviews.

 

I think I'm going to stop buying books online unless I know it's a sure thing.

[darksabre]

Bringing it back around to books: I'm finding that lately (last 2-3 years), the stuff I buy online on recommendations (usually through the book review sections of numerous newspapers) disappoint me. They sit on shelves, half-read, for a long time.

 

Once upon a time, I used to go to bookstores. I could take that same list of recommendations, read a few pages and decide. Now, I'm impulsive, buy off of amazon.com, and I'm left with unread books. Even books billed as "exciting" and literary (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is an example that immediately comes to mind) just sit there after a couple hundred pages.

 

I realize that Talking Leaves doesn't have the greatest selection, and if I drive out to the 'burbs to Barnes & Noble, well, they're also limited by space (even if it's a LOT more space). But I have more success even in an airport bookstand than I do online. I've discovered more great books in bookstores than I ever have online or by reading reviews.

 

I think I'm going to stop buying books online unless I know it's a sure thing.

 

I think a lot of it depends on the type of book. I read a lot of history and very niche genre books, so I have had great luck buying online because I know ahead of time what kind of person will enjoy that book. I think when you start getting into sci-fi, historical fiction, fantasy, you start getting into books read by a lot more people who are a lot less critical of what they're reading. And then you end up buying something you don't like.

 

There is certainly merit to perusing "real" books. Especially if you're browsing or stepping into an author or genre that you aren't sure you'll like. It help to be able to page through one at the book store and know right away "eh, I'm not going to like this."

[Eleven]

I think a lot of it depends on the type of book. I read a lot of history and very niche genre books, so I have had great luck buying online because I know ahead of time what kind of person will enjoy that book. I think when you start getting into sci-fi, historical fiction, fantasy, you start getting into books read by a lot more people who are a lot less critical of what they're reading. And then you end up buying something you don't like.

 

There is certainly merit to perusing "real" books. Especially if you're browsing or stepping into an author or genre that you aren't sure you'll like. It help to be able to page through one at the book store and know right away "eh, I'm not going to like this."

 

You may be right; I'm not much of a genre fiction guy. I like good, straight, this-reflects-life, fiction. The stuff that English majors will read in 2112.

 

And occasionally, there comes out a genre fiction book that I freaking LOVE. Girl w/ Dragon Tattoo is one, and the sequel is hangin' around my house waiting to be read.

 

But it is mostly fiction, and not non-fiction, that has disappointed lately. There are exceptions.

[Weave]

Bringing it back around to books: I'm finding that lately (last 2-3 years), the stuff I buy online on recommendations (usually through the book review sections of numerous newspapers) disappoint me. They sit on shelves, half-read, for a long time.

 

Once upon a time, I used to go to bookstores. I could take that same list of recommendations, read a few pages and decide. Now, I'm impulsive, buy off of amazon.com, and I'm left with unread books. Even books billed as "exciting" and literary (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is an example that immediately comes to mind) just sit there after a couple hundred pages.

 

I realize that Talking Leaves doesn't have the greatest selection, and if I drive out to the 'burbs to Barnes & Noble, well, they're also limited by space (even if it's a LOT more space). But I have more success even in an airport bookstand than I do online. I've discovered more great books in bookstores than I ever have online or by reading reviews.

 

I think I'm going to stop buying books online unless I know it's a sure thing.

 

Small town used book stores FTW!!

 

If you are ever down around Chautauqua Lake there is a huge used book store just a bit south of the Chautauqua Institution (Mayville end of the lake). I cannot recall its name and Google is failing me. It is a huge building jam packed with books, mostly used but some new. You can get lost for hours in the place. I have done just that on rainy days.

[Eleven]

Small town used book stores FTW!!

 

If you are ever down around Chautauqua Lake there is a huge used book store just a bit south of the Chautauqua Institution (Mayville end of the lake). I cannot recall its name and Google is failing me. It is a huge building jam packed with books, mostly used but some new. You can get lost for hours in the place. I have done just that on rainy days.

 

I know. Every county has at least one of those. (EDIT: That wasn't meant to be condescending, but rather, "yep, been there, and I like it too." It could come off either way, I suppose.)

 

Back in the day, I used to live for the used book sale at the Williamsville library.

 

Now, I wonder how much of my stuff sells at such places!

Edited May 3, 2012 by Eleven

[FogBat]

For another counterpoint try The Roosevelt Myth by John T Flynn.

 

I read somewhere that John T. Flynn was so conservative that he made William F. Buckley, Jr. look like a neocon liberal.

 

Now, to try to get the thread back on track to the topic at hand, I'm reading Stars Fell on Alabama by Carl Carmer.

[5th line wingnutt]

I read somewhere that John T. Flynn was so conservative that he made William F. Buckley, Jr. look like a neocon liberal.

 

Now, to try to get the thread back on track to the topic at hand, I'm reading Stars Fell on Alabama by Carl Carmer.

 

Is being conservative bad?

 

I know little about Flynn's politics, but I seem to remember that he did have an axe to grind. I read this book a long time ago and he does rake FDR over the coals. If you are really interested in something you owe it to yourself to get both sides of the story. I have read a good bit about FDR starting with the typical grade school and high school history texts that had FDR on a very tall pedestal. Reading something you disagree with builds character.

 

Is it really off topic (in an 'off topic' thread no less) to suggest a book on a subject you expressed interest in?

 

Anyhow, what is Stars Fell on Alabama about?

[5th line wingnutt]

I have been interested in the difference between liberals and conservatives since the mid 1970s.

 

Up thread I recommended A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. This book was very on-point about this very subject. Some folks understand that liberals and conservatives often argue past each other, they both just do not where the other guy is coming from. I think a careful reading of Sowell’s book would help in bridging the gap. Sowell’s thesis is that there are basically two visions of human nature, a constrained view, and an unconstrained view, and conservatives believe in the constrained vision and liberals in the unconstrained view. This is an oversimplification; there is a whole lot more here. The unconstrained view is sometimes called the blank slate theory.

 

There is another book I came across lately that throws some light on this subject. The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt is a moral psychologist and his thesis is that different folks have different moral matrices (aka moral foundations) that lead them to different conclusions. His ideas are not inconsistent with Sowell. He and some others have a very interesting web site at www.yourmorals.org. There are many “tests” that measure your moral foundations.

[TrueBlueGED]

Liberals and conservatives often times talk past one another. Most of it has to do with the fact that not only do they tend to have different values, but even if they have the same values, the way in which they define those values can be completely different. For example, even if both sides agree that equality is a desirable value, they may completely disagree on what equality is, let alone how to get there.

 

Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Makiing by Deborah Stone is a great exposition on the topic.

Edited May 23, 2012 by TrueBluePhD

[That Aud Smell]

I read somewhere that John T. Flynn was so conservative that he made William F. Buckley, Jr. look like a neocon liberal.

Is being conservative bad?

 

nothing wrong with being conservative. but being that conservative? probably a bit much. (disclaimer: i have no idea who john t. flynn is -- the only john flynn i know of is a pro basketball player from WNY).

[5th line wingnutt]

Liberals and conservatives often times talk past one another. Most of it has to do with the fact that not only do they tend to have different values, but even if they have the same values, the way in which they define those values can be completely different. For example, even if both sides agree that equality is a desirable value, they may completely disagree on what equality is, let alone how to get there.

 

Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Makiing by Deborah Stone is a great exposition on the topic.

 

 

I agree about arguing past each other. It was one of the reasons for my two posts. You are correct that the sides disagree on the definition of things like equality. Sowell's book explores this at length. If both sides say they are for equality, but do not mean the same thing by "equality" do they really have the same values? Words are words, meanings are more elusive.

 

Tell us more about "Policy Paradox".