Santa Claus, you better reach over and wake up Cachi. You're not having a good start this morning.

"Santa Claus, it is quite evident you don't care about econometric research. You didn't need to state the obvious. "

Im not an economic historian

"Santa Claus to class "Students, pick up your pencils and write down word for word what I say."

Not quite

"Student to teacher "Teacher can we learn how to analysis different interpretations of historical events and become familiar with the latest research methods like econometric research that is changing the historical communities entire understanding of economic history?"

you obviously don't teach.

You obviously also have never got it through your thick head what I have been saying. Let me know what in those econometric research goes against 2

1. FDR tried to balance the budget in 37-38- which is backed by not only his correspendence, meeting minutes, but also actions he took to cut Federal programs and spending
2. FDR was not a Keynseyan- which is supported by his belief that Federal spending was a means to an end rather than an end to itself in improving the economy until his views began to change at the dawn of WWII

What is happening here is you are throwing out irrelevant research to make yourself feel smart (believe me you dont seem smart) and to dodge the fact that you made a mistatement before. You conflate public spending with Keynes because you don't know what you are talking about, and say FDR never tried to balance the budget because you are wholly ignorant of anything but what the conservative culture warriors feed you. Let me know how either of those points are refuted by the "latest econometric research" or as usual you are full of shit. And yes I know you wont address this post as usual.

"The fact that Americans turned to boycott came after the Stamp Act.
The first protestations from the colony came as a result of the Sugar Act and the Currency Act of 1764. "

One year after the Seven Years War ended. right It was such a loong time before the Boycottd

"If you want to read the latest research on the evolution of the economic boycotts you should read the Marketplace of Revolution by Breen"

Ive read it 3 times and wrote about it in my comprehensive exams, and its curious that you bring it up considering it completely supports my statement above, that boycotts were the first recourse of colonists, and that they were essential for unifying the 13 colonies against Parliament and later the crown.

"When you boycott buying the News of the World, a newspaper in case you didn't know or forgot, you are attacking the press and free speech."

Or a completely unsavory tactic employed by a specific paper...

If a student is asking about econometric research specifically, he probably doesn't need to be in that class. And I would also hope that he could use something approaching proper grammar if he was trying to make his teacher look bad. analyze...are changing...community's...

LOL @ boycotting a specific paper meaning that you're against free press and free speech. I guess you should go buy all the neo-Nazi papers because if you don't, you're attacking free press and free speech! Free press and free speech say that the legislature should make no law abridging those freedoms, people are free to purchase or not purchase as they see fit. If we were suggesting making a law, then that would be against free press/speech. That's not the suggestion.

Telling me I'm not allowed to boycott a paper is attacking my freddom of speech. You see, I'm free to speak with my wallet and I do everytime I decide to buy or not to buy a given product from a given store.

Telling me I'm not allowed to boycott a paper is attacking my freddom of speech. You see, I'm free to speak with my wallet and I do everytime I decide to buy or not to buy a given product from a given store.

Telling me I'm not allowed to boycott a paper is attacking my freddom of speech. You see, I'm free to speak with my wallet and I do everytime I decide to buy or not to buy a given product from a given store.

I *hate* Error 500s.

Since Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech as they pertain to America are from the Constitution, let's see what the first amendment has to say about it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law. People are under no obligation to listen to or support speech or press they dislike.

Santa Claus, for someone who claims to have read Breen three times it seems odd you would make the unsupportable claim that "The Colonies first recourse against Britain was the boycott."
If you look on page 195 Breen states "No one knows when precisely American public opinion first realized that imported goods provided powerful political leverage within the empire." He then goes on to state in the same paragraph that February 1766, was the first time that the "radical potential of the goods exported across the Atlantic...."
If you look at the index in your copy of the book you find that "implementation and enforcing of boycotts" isn't covered until page 227 where he begins talking about the implementation of non-importation in 1766.
So Mr. Breen directly contradicts the statement you posted that "The Colonies first recourse against Britain was the boycott" since colonial protestations of the Currency Act of 1764 and the Sugar Act of 1764 were not boycotts. I guess you will need to post that the colonists did not protest the twin acts of Grenville in 1764 in a vain attempt to save face.
Santa Claus, you need to be careful what you post because it's painfully obvious you let your mockingboard keyboard overload your hummingbird ass to paraphrase an old country colloquialism.

Santa Claus, As I pointed out earlier in the thread the boycott discussed in this thread isn't targeting the "unsavory act." If you wanted to target the act you would use the courts. The boycott targets an organic entity of the press.

Putin33 never met a vaguely left-wing dictator he didn't like.

Santa Claus, on your repeated efforts to paint Roosevelt as a budget balancer.

May 6, 1939, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, confirmed the total failure of the New Deal to stop the Great Depression: “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

If you look on page 195 Breen states "No one knows when precisely American public opinion first realized that imported goods provided powerful political leverage within the empire." He then goes on to state in the same paragraph that February 1766, was the first time that the "radical potential of the goods exported across the Atlantic...."

He views the growth of the boycotts as being a process of community building, a process that accelerated in the wake of the Seven Years War. I dont have in infront of me (and it was a massive book), so i dont know how much he talks about the merchant boycotts of the sugar act, which there were. His point, if I remember what that it wasnt until the aftermath of the stamp act and later that the general boycotts (which were enforced by committees which meant even those who didnt want in would have to join) became prevalent. There def. were boycotts in response to the sugar act.

May 6, 1939, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, confirmed the total failure of the New Deal to stop the Great Depression: “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

That was 1939 after Roosevelt started spending again, as I said 1937-1938 was when he took actions to balance the budjet, you can argue all you want but its a simple fact Roosevelt wanted to balance the budget (and Morganthau with him)

but then again you would know that if you read Brinkley's book which whole premise is that FDR's failed attempt to balance the budget in 37-38 led to fundamental changes in the thought new dealers and led to modern liberalism

Santa Claus, you are a lunatic. Marketplace of the Revolution isn't a massive book. It's 374 pages. My hardcover copy is 1'16' inches thick.
Please continue your retreat from "The Colonies first recourse against Britain was the boycott."
Why don't you just think about what you are posting before you post something stupid like that?
Give it a try.

It isnt a retreat, I wholeheartedly believe that, if you want to argue burning effigies counts as recourse, go right ahead, but I view the first organized actions against british interests as being boycotts as does Breen.

"Why don't you just think about what you are posting before you post something stupid like that?
Give it a try. "

I guess it would be a nice counterpoint to you...

Santa Claus, you keep referencing Alan Brinkley's End of Reform as if it deals with the economics of the Depression in any meaningful way. Alan Brinkley is not an economic historian he is a political historian. This is the great shortcoming of End of Reform. It is an incomplete treatment of the single biggest economic topic in 20th century US history because it does not deal effectively with economics.

I guess you read a book on basketball and then use it to talk about football because they are all sports.
You read a book on the political history of the New Deal and then talk about the economic history of the New Deal.
I can't help you Santa Claus. You are just too lazy and too stupid.

I understand that, I dont give a crap about economic history, he doesnt need to be an economic historian to show that FDR TRIED TO BALANCE THE BUDGET YOU TWIT. It isnt even a fucking short treatment, it only deals with the last 3 years, or one part of the GD, which you would know if you read it. What it shows crystal clearly is that until the very end, FDR was NOT a Keynseyan, and he tried to BALANCE THE BUDGET. His history is a POLITICAL and INTELLECTUAL HISTORY meant to track the beginning of modern liberalism including the rise of KEYNSEYAN ECONOMICS. AGAIN, FDR WAS NOT A KEYNSEYAN and HE TRIED TO BALANCE THE BUDGET. These ARE FACTS.

Im done with this horse shit, you want to keep going PM me

@Sanata - You'd do better to just mute the putz.

also, following Draugs lead, TC is hereby muted. At least Putin makes a good point once and a while

Chuckie: Are we gonna have a problem here?

Clark: No, no, no, no! There's no problem here. I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could be most aptly described as agrarian precapitalist.

Chuckie: Let me tell you something -

Will: Of course that's your contention. You're a first-year grad student; you just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'till next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you're going to be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year; you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

Clark: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social -

Will: "Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth"? You got that from Vickers' "Work in Essex County," page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?

Clark: [looks down in shame]

Will: See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a f***in' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!

Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree. And you'll be servin' my kids fries at a drive-thru on our way to a skiing trip.

Will: That may be, but at least I won't be unoriginal. But I mean, if you have a problem with that, I mean, we could just step outside - we could figure it out.

Clark: No, man, there's no problem. It's cool.

Does that look/sound vaguely familiar?

Santa Claus, retreat is your best option. Good luck. You will need it.