To: ahhaha who wrote (1613 ) 3/18/2001 7:53:41 AM From: Ilaine Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24758 When Meltzer says that "had they done thus-and-so it would have come out different and better," he's being an economist. When he talks about who did what and why they did it and what happened when they did what they did, and then what happened, he's being an historian. All I want to understand is what really did happen. So what I am trying to talk about is who did what, and why. I reread a little of Murray Rothbard's work on the Great Depression last night, and it's become completely unreadable to me. He talks about politics. He uses broad generalities. In the context of what I am thinking about, it's meaningless to me. Farmers need money in the spring so they can plant, and they make money in the fall, when they harvest. Some years the harvest is good, some years the harvest is bad, due to the weather, no matter how good of a farmer you are. If they have a couple of bad years in a row, then they might have to borrow money, but if they can't borrow money then they can't plant and they go bust. Most businesses are like that. Money isn't an abstraction. It's a way of keeping score of promises. All money is backed by the promise to make good. Money isn't a drug. It's seeds for crop that pay off in the harvest, it's wood to build a new house, it's land and bricks for a new office, it's what you pay the guy who does the work so he can put groceries on the table and clothes on the back of his family. If your kid is sick, money can buy drugs, and pay for a doctor, too. >>trained slaves of the masters of society<< You sound like Rothbard. What does this mean? Who are the masters of society? The guy who built the railroad that brought my great grandfather to North Dakota was probably one of the people you'd call the masters of society, but all my great grandfather did for him was buy a ticket.