paul johnson has written about it that it was the last recession that was treated purely from a laissez-faire where spending was drastically reduced, and the -- you know, the interesting thing was that it, it was such a short -- it was very painful and did what arguably a recession should do in the economy, but it wasn't long before the economy had really bounced back, and i think part of that was the fact that they had a secretary of the treasury who was very clear that text rates are going to be lower next year than they are now, and people were willing to invest, you know, with that in mind. okay. one more question. anybody else? you've all been very patient. thank you. >>> next weekend on history bookshelf, francine prose talks about her book "anne frank, the book, the life, the afterlife examined the impact anne frank's diary has had on the history and understanding of the holocaust. it was 70 years ago on july 6, 1942 that 13-year-old anne frank and her family went into hiding from the nazis in amsterdam. in 1944 they were caught and sent to concentration camps. anne frank died in a con

we are moving from a moment 1912 into a kind of period of laissez faire politics in the 1920s. and yet you end up with the new deal. so whatever blip on the screen of center left politics and addressing inequality, go from 1912 to 1972,you have only a small window in there that produces the great depression. and we basically build an infrastructure, institutionalize the best of the progress of our social welfare system. that gave face and fuel to the emergence of the new right. they are still fighting against the impact of fdrs policy, "the wall street journal," just had an op-ed, talking about obama channelling franklin dell knroo. the stakes are much different. there is a much more compelling populist attraction to supply-side economicsics that the right has been advocating for a long time. >> one of the things, said earlier, we talk grassroots progressivism. helps to explain why i think why it was a center left country then and center right country now. at those grassroots. people who are progressives were building up structures, institutions like labor unions, like farmers

it was not a laissez faire system exactly, but it was close to one. lord revelstowe, senior partner of bering brothers lost his estate and his fine collection of french furniture and paintings. we have gotten away from that. we have let lapse, for example, erased from the statute books a law that required in a limited liability banking institution, a corporation, we have erased the law that required in the event of that bank's failure the stockholders would get the capital call. it was, after all, their bank and not the government's. all that is gone. in its place we have the unstining issuance of -- currency and we have the creeping no galloping through the doctrine that some institutions must be favored, some are too big to fail. so on a micro level as well as on a macro level, it seems to be the serious consideration of a true gold standard is front and center. >> thank you, jim. may i start with you on this issue of what you call the true gold standard. it seems to me that the -- it was to defend marxism by saying it hadn't been properly implement

less say, less say, laissez-faire in terms of they don't want initiatives with clean air, clean water, public education, public transportation, public health, medicare, medicaid, social security. this is what they believe, no government and bless their hearts they act upon their beliefs and their beliefs are dangerous to the thriving middle class in our country. so we see so much of it coming together, why would they oppose initiatives to create jobs? the president's american jobs act. some people call it obstruction. it is obstruction, but obstruction is their orthodoxy. they don't believe in a public role. so it's not that they're obstructing this way of getting something done, but it's no way for them. that's why they take pride in being the do-nothing congress. everybody knows that our founders had in mind that there would be a public role, that we'd have a public/private partnerships and that the education of our children and incentives with the creation of jobs and then later, economic security for our seniors and economic health for the security of our seniors and we all believ

rather laissez-faire. work and save, low tax democrat. of the kind that went out of fashion along about march 1933. so baruch, i also learned in studying baruch that it's important to have a biographical subject that you really like. because i came -- i admire baruch for so many things but he finally showed himself to be someone for whom getting along was more important than principle. and it became irksome. if one, as i say, writes books nights, weekends, and the fourth of july, you have to love it. >> it sounds like you didn't like him. >> he's okay. >> you clearly liked thomas reed and how did you get to know him? >> reed? >> yes. >> let me say one last thing about baruch before leaving. he was a great friend for the people who loved him and many, many did. my impatience with him was over his choosing to get along rather than to choose to stand on principle and be on the outside looking in. so that's baruch. reed was a horse of a different color. he was -- he was a man of a certain bloody-minded principle, which shown forth most clearl

they did not want laissez faire. they wanted something. they did not want this, though. i mean, there was a sense of if this is such a great approach to this problem, why isn't it being done to the white kids, right? and so what we tried to engineer with l.e.a.d. is a recognition that for the time being the police will be asked to deal with these issues and problems and to a significant extent their deployment will be racialized, that this is a bigger problem and a more long-standing pattern than we can take on with this single policy change. however, could we reduce the harm of that police engagement and patterns of deployment by making it so when the police respond what happens is not the beginning of an incredibly harmful interaction that destroys this individual's life but an interaction that puts greater resources at their disposal to actually map out a realistic life plan that will not require them to sell drugs on the street corner to pay their rent indefinitely. that's what we're trying to do. there are all kinds of implementation challenges and this model is a v

they were there -- country was not laissez faire. they had the element to it, but it did -- the really las say fair economics came later. notably in the mid to late 20th century. so i don't think there's -- i think that it does pay to center a government that thinks of -- so governor clinton in new york advocated for years supporting the eerie canal and it was a private investment but it had support of the government and wonderful things. the government and then the railroads and the government supported the railroads. i don't think that we want to leave things entirely to las say fair market forces. we have to to be careful too. you can go too far. again, this is my philosophy as a teacher. most things are have truth. and i don't have clear and solid laws in economic a that approach those of physics. there's got to be some role of the government. once the government has a role, there's a risk they'll be brided or bought out and go too far. it's a complicated world. i have actually faith that the country is moving forward, and so the

laissez faire in terms of not wanting initiatives like clean air or clean water, public education, public housing, public health, medicare, medicaid, social security. this is what they believe, no government and bless their hearts, they act upon their beliefs. their beliefs are dangerous to a thriving middle class in our country. we see so much of it coming together. why would they oppose the initiative to create jobs? jobsresident's american act text some people called obstruction. it is obstruction but obstruction is their orthodoxy. they don't believe in the public role. it is not that they're obstructing this way of getting something done, it is no way for them. that is why they take pride in being the do nothing congress. everybody knows that our founders had in mind that there would be a public role and we would have a public/private partnership and that the education of our children, incentives for the creation of jobs, and later, economic security for our seniors, economic and health security for our seniors. i think we all believe that kids should be clean and safe neighborhoods,

they are laissez, laisseez, laissez faire. they support those who would privatize the system and nationalize risk. in our financial transactions. laissez faire in terms of they do not want any regulation for public housing, public education, public health, social security -- this is what they believe. no government. bless their hearts, they act upon their beliefs. their beliefs are dangerously thriving middle-class in our country. so you see so much of a coming together. why would they oppose an initiative to create jobs? the president's american jobs act. some people called obstruction. it is obstruction, but obstruction is their orthodoxy. they do not believe in a public role. it is not the they are obstructing this way of getting something done. it is no way for them. that is why they take pride in that they do nothing. everybody knows that our founders had in mind that there would be a public role, that we would have a public-private partnership, and that the education of our children, incentives for the creation of jobs,

because they have other dealings with the companies, it's a problem and dick contributes to the laissez-faire board approach that i think is, but at 70 companies. one person said to me that they thought social media could be a way to get shareholders together to act as a group. that would be a great outcome of social media but i have not seen it yet. this is a glacial process to get shareholders to vote against packages. i have as frustrated as you are. >> washington's response to the tobacco call an act -- in response to the dog frank law, what is your assessment of that statute's potential to keep such bubbles from happening in the future? did congress know what it was doing and did obama know what he was doing what he signed it? >> i think that bought frank -- dodd-franc is 2000 pages of empirical details that ends up not protecting us, maybe not even protecting us more than we were leading up to the crisis. i like to compare it to blast the goal. clastic was 34 pages long. dodd-franc is 2000 pages long. the last legal protect us for 70 years i don't even think dodd- franc will protect us

they are laissez, laisseez, laissez faire. they support those who would privatize the system and nationalize risk. in our financial transactions. laissez faire in terms of they do not want any regulation for public housing, public education, public health, social security -- this is what they believe. no government. bless their hearts, they act upon their beliefs. their beliefs are dangerously thriving middle-class in our country. so you see so much of a coming together. why would they oppose an initiative to create jobs? the president's american jobs act. some people called obstruction. it is obstruction, but obstruction is their orthodoxy. they do not believe in a public role. it is not the they are obstructing this way of getting something done. it is no way for them. that is why they take pride in that they do nothing. everybody knows that our founders had in mind that there would be a public role, that we would have a public-private partnership, and that the education of our children, incentives for the creation of jobs,

more laissez fair.of the favorite statistics, how we can see how well we're doing, the christmas retail sales statistics. neimkneneiman marcus up 5.5%. saks, up 5.3%, and there is walmart down 1.3%. neiman marcus and saks up in 2010, just beginning limp out of recession. but those who can spend at niemann marcus and saks are spending more. >> it underscores what we're saying about romney. what american business is dealing with, is inequality. the results is that american businesses very good at catering to the handful of people who have spending power. that doesn't add up to job growth. >> the whole notion of the jobless recovery with unpatriotic idea ever created. getting back to the notion we aren't recovering unless we are recovered unless the people of this country are recovering. and corporate spending machines are saying we can have a recovery, just won't have new jobs, that isn't a recovery. >> coming up, a historic coalition forming on the streets of new york later today. and ben jealous will ta

the french also laissez faire approach. everybody should put money on the table.he french and a lot of the other countries in the periphery as we say but the countries of southern europe say put the money on the table first and we can talk about european integration later and the germans are saying give us more integration, give us more budget control first and then we put more money on the table. we limp from one summit to the next avoiding the heart of this discussion and unless one or the other gives we'll not get to a real solution because all the fiscal compact and everything we talk about could be a figure leaf if it hasn't both the kind of constitutional framework that we need for that. >> how do we combine the long term goals that we've got as far as what's needed for eu political integration and the short term need for spain and italy to get their borrowing costs down. >> we haven't solved that problem yet. the rules that the germans have proposed but ignored largely over the past ten years certainly have been revised and they provide now a solid framewor

companies whose shares they own, then that is a problem and that contributes to the, sort of, laissez-faire board approach that i think is common at some meat companies. one person said to me -- at so many companies. one person said to me that maybe social media is a way to get .houldershareholders together but i have not seen it yet. this is a glacial process to weaving get shareholders to vote against pay packages. i am as frustrated as you are. >> washington's response to the financial debacle was the frank law.of the dodd- what is your opinion for that loss potential to keep from that kind of debacle happening? >> i think the law -- it is 2000 pages of impenetrable, complex details that really end up not protecting us anywhere, maybe not even protecting us a bit more leading up to the crisis. i like to compare to glass- steagall. glass-steagall was 34 pages long. k is about two thousand pages long. glass-steagall save this for seven years. i think there -- glass-steagall protective vest for 70 years. -- protected us for 70 years. dodd and frank will say that, yes, we did, we put in the

dealings with the companies whose shares they own, that is a problem and that contributes to the laissez-faireh. maybe social media could be a way to get shareholders together to act as a group. that would be great. that would be a great outcome of social media but i have not seen it yet. this is a glacial process to even get shareholders to vote against pay packages. i am as frustrated as you are. >> washington's response to the financial debacle was the dodd- frank legislation. now the dodd-frank law. what is your assessment of that statute's potential to keep such debacle's from happening in the future? another way of putting that is no one knew what it was doing and obama did not know what he was doing when he signed it. >> the dodd-frank law was -- it is 2000 pages of impenetrable, complex details that end up not protecting us anywhere. and maybe even not protecting us a bit more than we were leading up to the crisis. i like to compare it to glass eagle -- glass-steagall. dodd-frank is 2000 pages long. i do not think dodd-frank will protect us for 10 years. there are key failures in dodd-