Moron Alert, Moron Alert

Edmund Conway - allegedly an "economics editor"; in truth, a moron.

And now in one single opinion page, we go from a good Telegraph writer to a total clueless moron writing about the G20 summit:

"But whatever their rhetoric, the leaders meeting in London today know that a breakdown in the G20 would be the surest way of consigning the world to a depression far greater in scale and misery than the 1930s."

Really? How do you figure that one? Now I'm not saying this summit isn't a big one, but frankly, it's more a big charade than anything else. I'm not denying that this summit is costing the taxpayer a lot (£4 million an hour or whatever it is), but next to the rest of our debt, it's not really a game-changer that's going to hasten the day of economic doom.

Oh ... oh sorry I misunderstood you? You weren't referring to the wasteful cost of the summit itself? Sorry, I didn't realise you actually genuinely think this summit is so important that its failure will inevitably herald a depression worse than the 1930's. I thought, you know, it was just some stupid, grand, empty assertion you'd thrown in for journalistic effect.

Frankly - Edmund Conway isn't it? Pleased to meet you, I'm Dan and you're a moron - I think the markets have more pressing matters beyond whether or not Sarkozy throws a hissy fit. Unless the summit actually does agree to a massive global stimulus, the trajectory the economy takes is going to be pretty unaffected by the grandiose fudging and wordplay that will inevitably be the outcome of this summit. If the G20 actually do agree to a massive co-ordinated fiscal stimulus, or something else similarly stupid, that, Mr Conway, will be "the surest way of consigning the world to a depression far greater in scale and misery than the 1930s." Oh, happy days.

Mr Conway then goes on to say something reasonably sensible about apologies, and who holds responsibility for the crisis, and agrees with me that Sarkozy's empty buffoonery is little more than just that. But then he's back at the "I'm-a-moron" game, this time on German Chancellor Merkel:

"This intransigence is dangerous. There is a very real possibility that, just as happened in the 1930s, the world will be torn into two separate economic blocs: those that attempt to reflate their economies and those that choose to liquidate, to sit back and to let destruction take its course. The latter is the path that the United States took in the 1930s, and the direction the Germans seem intent on travelling."

The Germans are about the only major world player, with the exception of Russia, who haven't lost their heads completely up Keynesian assholes. Then again, they know all about hyperinflation. Mr Conway seems to imply that sitting back and letting destruction take its course is the worst option, as opposed to what it is: the least bad. He implies this by asserting that that's what we did in the 30's, and we all know where that got us.

I'm interested, Mr Conway: how exactly did you get your job as "economics editor", because it certainly wasn't through any manner of expertise on the subject. Do you know anything? About anything at all? Roosevelt? New Deal? Sorry: I forgot, you're a moron. I'll give you a hint: Roosevelt's New Deal - sorry I forgot to add, Roosevelt was a US President, just in case you weren't clear - was a massive fiscal stimulus intended to beat the Depression. Another hint: the Germans were also around in the 1930's - they had a massive fiscal stimulus as well, in the form of turning on the printing presses. And just in case you weren't clear, well ... it didn't work out great. In both cases, government intervention prolonged and deepened the Depression.

Ever heard of Friedrich von Hayek? I just thought you might have, what with him being a renowned Nobel-prize winning economist. What do you mean, "Who's Nobel?" Oh yeah, sorry, I keep forgetting. Well, basically, it's a very prestigious prize, and see, Hayek won that prize for his work proving the fact. No, not the fact that you're a moron, there's no prizes for that one: the fact that government intervention prolonged and deepened the Depression.

How in God's name can you possibly argue that the US's errors during the Depression were ones of inaction? I honestly want to help you, moron that you may be, Edmund, to try and understand: your alternative version of economic history may make sense to you and many others stuck in your happy-moron-place, but it is utterly fantastical. If you're going to be "economics editor", do your readers the courtesy of actually learning about it.

In the same educational spirit, one commenter has given Mr Conway some sound words of advice, in a far kindlier manner than I can currently muster:

"Here is a quote from Hoover, on his renomination for the Republican ticket before the election which Roosevelt won:

"We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action."

And that was the supposedly non-interventionist Hoover! After Hoover, we of course had the "Stimulus King" himself, F.D.Roosevelt, who did all he possibly could to keep America in the depression, for as long as he was able. It was only in 1946, when most of the Roosevelt controls were finally lifted, that economic recovery came to the United States, to finally get the US back to its 1929 position in 1954, twenty five years after the crash. Please do get hold of "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. It really will help."

Indeed, a cracker of a book. The way we're repeating history would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Hoover's narrative has merely been passed down a few generations, and the only difference now is that the scale of action being taken based on this narrative is so much more epic - and dangerous. And the same commenter reminds us of everyone's favourite Event-That-We-Like-to-Pretend-Never-Happened:

"By the way, have you ever heard of the depression of 1921?"

Heh, wouldn't bother asking, mate, Mr Conway's a moron. He doesn't even know what a Nobel prize is. And history is certainly not his strong suit. I wonder if he has a strong suit.

"No. I thought not."

Told you. You've got to prepare for disappointment with this guy, I'm sorry to say. He is, after all, a moron.

"There was a panic in 1921 almost identical, if not worse, than the panic in 1929. This panic in 1921 was caused by the government inflation used to fund WWI. So why didn't it turn into a depression? Because the American government and its Federal Reserve did absolutely nothing to solve this panic.

The whole crisis was over in one year flat."

Lesson for morons now over for the day.