New Deal video

by Russ Roberts on December 12, 2008

in Great Depression

Here is a 35 minute video from a Canadian TV show, The Agenda with Steve Paikin, discussing the New Deal and the Great Depression. Guests are David Kennedy, Lee Ohanian, Eric Lascelles, Joe Martin, and me. It’s a very civilized conversation and with some interesting detail on the Great Depression in the US and Canada.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

90 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 45 comments }

Cheers December 12, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Typo: Pailin –> Paikin

I actually saw it on tv the other night… Very enjoyable

David Johnson December 12, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Republican: "But FDR wasn't president of Canada! How could it have had a depression?"

Democrat: "But Hoover wasn't president of Canada! How could it have had a depression?"

:-)

Joshua Kelly December 12, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Russell, it's Paikin not Pailin!

In any case, it's a fantastic program.

Jonathan Bydlak December 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Thanks, Russ. That video was awesome, and you stole the show.

Frederick Davies December 12, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Very good video; you should do a few more of those.

John S. December 13, 2008 at 12:22 am

Excellent.
Especially good to get the Canadian perspective.
John S.

Grant December 13, 2008 at 3:11 am

Very interesting, thanks for posting it.

Russ, did you think the show had a conservative bias, or were the guests from a mix of perspectives that all just happened to be pretty critical (at least a lot more critical than the US press would be) of the New Deal?

Do they actually show that stuff on television in Canada?

Marcus December 13, 2008 at 3:16 am

It was an excellent show. Wish we had more shows like it.

muirgeo December 13, 2008 at 9:50 am

Amazing again how much goes into analyzing the Great Depression and not what got us into it.

Joe Martin actually claimed FDR should have been more like Calvin Coolidge. Didn't Calvin Coolidge lead us into the Depression. This guy did nothing for 8 years and then it hit the fan 5 months into Hoovers watch. Hoover is more like Obama and Coolidge like Bush in terms of causality. Plus Hoover did nothing for almost a year and a half in which time things got much worse.

Finally, I think it's a mischaracterization to claim Hoover increased spending massively. He didn't do so ( in gross dollars) significantly until 1932.

LowcountryJoe December 13, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Professor Roberts calls it correctly.
Evidence for the skeptics

roger o. December 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Thanks Russ for the video, it was great.

muirgeo December 13, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Professor Roberts calls it correctly.
Evidence for the skeptics;

"And that is but one example of why the lay-offs of November 2008 – which will be part of George W. Bush's statistical record – fall in reality on the Obama election.

The fact that Obama is not in office yet is irrelevant. Businesses must see "around the corner"

That is so pathetic and childish it is ridiculous LCJ. If that's your evidence my friend you are hurting for evidence.

LowcountryJoe December 13, 2008 at 4:42 pm

That is so pathetic and childish it is ridiculous LCJ. If that's your evidence my friend you are hurting for evidence.

muirgeo, the author ascibing blame specifically to Obama is weak. But it is one businessman's account of why he's packing it in — he fears the business climate that an all Democratic Party led federal government will legislate. Russ, in this regard is correct. An uneasy and volatile regulatory landscape hurts people/economic actors. Is that what you find pathetic and childish? I ask, figuring that you're an authority on the topic.

Oh, and let us not believe that presidents have all that much to to with how well an economy does; it is the congress that has far more affect and an economy…and since 2006…

a Duoist December 13, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Good show; thanks for the tip.

If one thing is clear in attempting to draw parallels between the 30's and today it is that the Democratic Party's response to economic crises is, for them, a golden opportunity to restrain and regulate markets, all in the name of 'progress' or 'growth.' Listening to the scholars on the video, clearly the Roosevelt 'growth' policies based upon increasing the number and scope of regulatory institutions are, to say the least, problematical in creating economic growth.

Governments do not create economic growth. They very definitely create forms of growth, but the growth they create is 'cost.'

Nice show.

The Albatross December 13, 2008 at 6:59 pm

“This guy [Coolidge] did nothing for 8 years and then it hit the fan 5 months into Hoovers [sic] watch. Hoover is more like Obama and Coolidge like Bush in terms of causality.”
Well, Roosevelt did something for more than eight years and the result was still poor, the downturn in 1937 was actually worse than in 1929—Mission Accomplished Franklin! But let us not forget all the good done very quickly by Hoover. We got the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in June of 1930 and there was all that pressure on businesses to not cut wages that translated into 20 to 25 percent unemployment. Coolidge had absolutely nothing to do with The Depression. At the very worst the crash of 1929 was a classic stock market bubble (kind of like the one we had under Bill Clinton) that would have corrected itself if it was allowed to. In fact the data suggest, that the economy was beginning to turn around by late 1930-31, but then geniuses like Hoover and later Roosevelt got this bright idea to raise taxes, raise interest rates, and then corporatize the economy with government organization. I am always amazed why the anti-corporate crowd lionizes Roosevelt, the man loved them.
Also, government spending actually began rocketing in 1930. Furthermore, analyzing government spending in gross dollars spent is still inaccurate (even though it started going up in 1930) given that the money stock declined by about one third during the first years of the Great Depression. A better measure would be government spending as a percentage of GDP—please excuse the lousy Wikipedia page on the subject—they are usually so good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#United_States_of_America

scott clark December 13, 2008 at 7:55 pm

coolidge didn't serve two terms. he finished harding's term and served one of his own. about six years. and he was a great dude and can't be blamed for the depression.

muirgeo December 13, 2008 at 8:08 pm

- he fears the business climate that an all Democratic Party led federal government will legislate.

Posted by: LowcountryJoe

As if the last 8 years have been good for his business?

We heard the same dam thing when Clinton became president and I remember the talking heads in the 04 election saying how a republican would be better for the economy then John Kerry. It's BS! Look at the results for heck sake.

Sam Grove December 13, 2008 at 9:57 pm
The Albatross December 13, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Coolidge was the best damned President we ever had! Not only was he born on the Fourth of July, but he presided over a fantastic reduction in tax rates and the federal deficit. Although known as “Silent Cal,” he spoke more to the press than any President then and since (he also spoke several languages which is more than we can say for every president going back to Truman—(who I believe was quite good with Greek and Latin). He was not above dressing up in Native American garb when he was up for election and afterwards, and put on the hat for when Native Americans were granted full citizenship. All I can say is God Bless Calvin Coolidge—Ok his tariff policy sucked, but you remain the best President ever—oh and to be “fair and balanced” Grover Cleveland (D-NY) rocks too.

The Albatross December 13, 2008 at 10:21 pm

As if the last 8 years have been good for his business?
No they have been lousy—nothing but more rules and regulations. This is what surprises me about statists—you hate George W. Bush, but it turns out he is the best friend you ever had.

Sam Grove December 13, 2008 at 10:25 pm

It seems it is better to have a Dem as president and a Republican house rather than vice versa.

LowcountryJoe December 13, 2008 at 11:00 pm

We heard the same dam thing when Clinton became president…

The same dam thing? Would that be the Hoover Dam, Ducktor?

…and I remember the talking heads in the 04 election saying how a republican would be better for the economy then John Kerry. It's BS! Look at the results for heck sake.

Why listen to the talking heads? They're not going to explain that the congress has much more to do with the economy than a president does. So, in that regard, let's look at the economic results based on the composition of the congress.

Russell Roberts December 14, 2008 at 1:22 am

Thanks for the spelling correction, folks.

And please, let's keep it civilized.

the economic fractalist December 14, 2008 at 9:07 am

The Predictive Science of Nonstochastic Saturation Macroeconomics

http://www.economicfractalist.com/blog/?p=4

The complex macroeconomy operates by regular patterns akin to those of the hard sciences of physics and chemistry and is exactly represented by ideal timed-based unit, elegantly simple, quantum fractal progressions which compose the macroeconomy's ongoing summation wealth markers – its daily asset classes' valuation saturation curves. This quantum mathematical fractal regularity, this growth and decay patterned predictable behavior of nonstochastic asset valuation saturation and decay is the essence of the exact science that is nonstochastic saturation macroeconomics. This predictive science with asset valuation growth bounded qualitatively by asset overvaluation, asset overproduction, partially nonserviceable accumulated debt, and wages from ongoing jobs to service that debt, can be used to reckon the time frames of asset saturation highs and the time course and fractal progression to saturation asset valuation lows. The absolute values of asset class valuation highs and lows are dependent on the availability of desired assets and degree of preceding and ongoing credit expansion to obtain those assets. This credit expansion is dependent on the variables of lending rates, lending qualification parameters, and the telescoping of credit through fractional (derivative) electronic repackaging of real and virtual credit and the credit derivatives of asset artificial over valuation. Prospectively applying the empirically-derived simple asset valuation quantum fractal laws, a larger primary operating growth and decay valuation saturation fractal pattern has been recently identified which likely represents the time sequence of the US Composite Equity 150-160 year Great Second Fractal's nonlinear collapse, The 11/27/22 month or 46/115/92 week Wilshire fractal growth series starting in October 2002 and ending in the 19 July 2007 high follows the x/2.5x/2x three phase Lammert quantum valuation saturation growth fractal sequence. A reflexive 20/50/40 day fractal took the Wilshire to an exactly predicted interday high on 11 October 2007. In the 2005 above cited reference a predicted extension of the third fractal growth period of 2x to 2-2.5x was made. The Wilshire's 11 October 2007 nominal high fell into the time span of this predicted 22-27 month extension (11/27/22-27months). The Wilshire's final third fractal extension to 2x-2.5x :: 22-27 month valuation saturation area now has pertinance in relationship to a larger identified fractal pattern. It is the nature of fractals that there are interpolated operative fractal patterns within yet larger fractal patterns. The largest operative macroeconomic valuation saturation fractal pattern for the United States' primitive stock exchanges began very proximal to the establishment of its constitution. About 70 years later in 1858, the US Great Second Fractal of time length 2-2.5x began. Nonlinear asset decay within the terminal 2x to 2.5x portion is the hallmark of second fractals and 1998 marked the 2x or 140 year time length – entering the terminal 2x to 2.5xperiod of asset devaluation nonlinearity. This post 1998 entry into the time period of nonlinearity has biased this observer's past asset valuation fractal interpretations. Retrospectively all fractal progression has been consistent with the larger picture of money growth leading to the inevitable ideal asset valuation saturation time frames. The decade or two leading to 1998 and the decade thereafter caused an extension of the 2x: 140 year second fractal length but still within the larger 35 year 2x -2.5x window. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of the Asian manufacturing giants, first Japan and Korea and then China and southeast Asia supplying US retailers with less expensive robotic produced or extremely low labor cost produced items; the rise of the transoceanic transportation industry importing those goods with a correlative surge in transportation related equity valuations; the Eastern symbiotic feedback investment of US dollar profits in US debt instruments allowing continuation of the trade arrangement, the development of the personal computer and its associated software industry, the globalization of US corporations seeking higher profits with outsourcing of expensive US jobs, and the overwhelmingly predominant critical element of the computer based electronic sophisticated manipulations of the unregulated financial and banking industries who telescoped the global money and credit supply into virtual money instruments for the purpose of large front end profits and who were essential in selling US debt instruments to the emerging Eastern manufacturers and maintaining the strange paper for goods arrangement -all of these elements have interacted since 1998 to create two successive asset bubbles created by the available excessive telescoped credit. The PC and Internet equity bubble with froth spillover into other equity classes resembled the Tulip Mania and select undetermined South Sea Instruments credit-available asset saturation bubbles from 360 and 280 years before. This bubble crested in March 2000. The follow-on massive Federal Reserve imprudently low interest rate credit expansion combined with an unregulated financial and banking industries' credit telescoped and sophisticated debt repackaged credit expansion – with unprincipled lending to the most marginal of buyers(debtors) who had no possibility of servicing the debt – created one of the greatest rotating asset valuation saturation bubbles of all time. The real estate, equity, and commodity bubbles crested in 2006, October 2007, and July 2008, respectively. The commodity asset bubble involved the world's waning oil supply which is both finite and limited by producers' capacity to pump it from depleted old fields or convert it from oil sand equivalents. World production capacity did not meet global demand, which was a function of explosive world economic activity expanded by the financial industries' telescoped credit availability and by the financial industry's assisted creation and sales of US debt instruments to the new Eastern manufacturing giants – with enormous front end profits. Within a time span of six months, a rapidly contracting real global economy, created a situation whereby available supply overwhelmed fallen demand with oil declining over 100 US dollars per barrel – a remarkable but expected – second fractal nonlinear collapse of asset valuation. It is better stated that the credit expansion leading to these recent 2000 and 2006-2008 US generational asset class valuation saturation areas began with the 'create work' economic policies and new entitlement programs in the 1930's and even earlier with the debt and credit enabling private banking US Federal Reserve establishment in 1913. The rapid growth of entitlement programs have created forward governmental borrowing which further expands ongoing credit. But it is well recognized by responsible parties inclusive of the former comptroller of the United States that these entitlement programs are fiscally impossible to sustain in the out years.
What then is the larger quantum asset saturation fractal pattern for the 140-175 year US Equity asset class Great Second Fractal nonlinear collapse? 1998 marked the beginning of the US composite Great Second Fractal's terminal 2x-2.5x possible interval range. The successive great credit driven asset bubbles have extended the interval but made the inevitable nonlinear ending much more catastrophic for enabled debtors and last musical chair asset owners. For the Wilshire, proxy for the world's equity valuation, starting in October 1998, a growth fractal of 2/5/4 months occurred. A decay fractal of 7/18/17 months thereafter evolved with the initiating 7 months occurring in the saturation area of the 2/4/5 month third fractal 4 month high. In credit cycles asset valuation growth begins in the antecedent decay fractal areas and conversely decay begins in the the antecedent terminal saturation growth areas. A complex 3/7/6 month growth fractal began in last month or two of the 18 month third decay fractal during the time frame of June-July 2002. This 14 month asset valuation fractal is followed by a second 35 month 2.5x growth fractal and a 28 month third growth fractal. A similar monthly fractal pattern exist for the CAC, FTSE, and DAX. For the NIKKEI, a 14/32/28 month Lammert fractal parallels the US and European composite equity valuation saturation pattern. Note that even the NIKKEI falls into the Lammert x/2-2.5x/2x fractal growth pattern. The third fractal 28th month for the Wilshire, CAC, FTSE, DAX, and NIKKEI is September 2008 – the lower high valuation sation area time frame where the Wilshire's incipient nonlinear decline began. The Wilshire's weekly fractal sequence correlative to the incipient 3/7/6 or 14 month base fractal is minimally complicated with a terminal decay weekly fractal series conjoined with an incipient weekly growth fractal series forming the first growth fractal of the 2002-2003 three phase weekly fractal growth sequence. The weekly fractal progression commencing in June 2002 is a decay sequence of 7/17/18 weeks where valuation growth begins in the second weekly decay fractal resulting in a nodal 17 week low – but not an underlying slope line 17 week absolute lower low. The third decay fractal of 18 weeks does end in a slope line lower low in March of 2003. The last 5 weeks of the third 18 week decay fractal becomes the base for the next fractal series of 5/11/12 weeks. The combined decay fractal series and growth fractal series occurred at the interface of a period of ending credit contraction and beginning credit expansion and had a duration of 61 weeks. The second fractal nodal lows occurred at week 150 and 155 with an average of 152.5 weeks consistent with an ideal first fractal base of 60 and 62 with an average of 61 weeks. 120 weeks after the 150 week second fractal nodal low or at 2X of the ideal first 60 week base, the final lower high third fractal saturation area yielded to the incipient area of the nonlinear 1.5-1.6x fourth decay fractal. The time frame of this the Wilshire's third fractal 120 week final lower high valuation saturation area was during the 3rd to 4th week of September 2008 with a non linearity occurring at week 122 or about the second week in October 2008. The monthly and weekly fractal sequences for the Wilshire from June – July 2002 near the end of the internet asset valuation and credit bubble collapse are 14/35/28 months and 61/150-155/120-122 weeks – both conforming rather precisely to a x/2.5x/2x Lammert fractal growth progression. The 1.5-1.6x decay fractal for the completion of the x/2.5x/2x/1.5-1.62x Lammert growth and decay fractal series would ideally last about 21-23 months or 90-98 weeks. Currently as of 13 December 2008, the four phase x/2-2.5x/2x/1.5-1.62x Lammert growth and decay equity asset valuation saturation sequence starting in June -July 2002 is 14/35/28/3-4 of 21-23 months and the weekly pattern is 61/152.5/120-122/10-12 of 90-98 weeks. Reviewing again the Wilshire's 11/27/22-27 month interpolated growth fractal commencing in October 2002, an interesting observation can be made about the 22-27 month extended third fractal containing the new science of saturation macroeconomics predicted 11 October 2007 nominal intraday high. A 6 month or 24 week fractal contains the 11 October 2007 22-27 month third fractal high. This could reasonably be the incipient base for a decay fractal sequence of y/2.5y/2.5y :: 6/12 of 15/15 months or as of 13 December 2008 y/2.5y/2.y :: 24/47 of 60/60 weeks. The terminal area of this interpolated weekly decay fractal in 72 weeks approximates the terminal area of the 61/152.5/120-122/12 of 90-98 week larger four phase Lammert fractal saturation valuation series occurring in 78–86 weeks with possible nodal valuation lows marked both end areas. And interestingly because this is the conclusion of such an enormous 140-175 year US equity second fractal, this fractal sequence may be an interpolated valuation fractal series and part of a 40/77 of 97/100 month larger decay fractal sequence starting in the saturation third fractal 4 month area of a 2/5/4 growth fractal beginning in October 1998 with an incipient base decay fractal of 7/18/17 or 40 months. This decay series would place a nodal low approximately 9 1/2 years. This would roughly parallel gold's expected nodal low with a 7/17/14/10-11 year Four phase Lammert valuation saturation fractal series beginning in 1970. For the smaller interpolated global composite equity fractal series of 14/32-35/20/21-23 months and gold's monthly interpolated valuation saturation series. proxy for the CRB commodities, of 20-21/51/41/2 of 31 months and of 17/35/34/10 of 25 months, a further 80-90 per cent decline of equity and commodity values is possible over the next 16-20 months with long term debt US instruments approaching zero yields.

muirgeo December 14, 2008 at 9:27 am

Well again I'll just state that the logic here evades me. Coolidge delivers the Great Depression, Hoover gets blamed for it and FDR is hassled for not cleaning up their incredible mess properly.

And of course the ignorant people who re-elected him 3 times do not understand the situation like we here do 70 years later.

Now Bush and the Republicans deliver another massive economic meltdown and people are already to blame the Democratic party and Obama.

But though I'm quite convinced we have a ways to the bottom we will likely get to see a more Keynsian response and it'll be fun too watch the excuse pour out as the economy does respond.

The pages of this blog are on record extolling the great economy of the last 10- 20 years and ignoring the signs (income gap ect) of its impending doom, explaining away the primary causes, now criticizing the responses and future response.

We are about to complete a whole cycle of market deregulation boom and bust and Keyensian recovery that won't allow for the re-writing history and second guessing of history as we have seen of the last Republican Great Depression.

Of course already this time around the disaster has been lessened thanks to FDR with FDIC and Social Security in place he's already lessened the blow… but of course this was questioned in the video as well.

Are any of the libertarians here really upset that we have FDIC?

LowcountryJoe December 14, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Are any of the libertarians here really upset that we have FDIC?

I'm very concerned about the moral hazard placed on the taxpayer if things should get too bad.

I'm also concerned that the bank's premiums would not cover the actual cost of the insurance if it were needed. What does the government do with those premuims anyway? I ask because if they're spending the payroll surpluses on current spending and leaving IOUs in their place, you know that they're spending the premiums and not investing in actual securities that have value.

In principle, the FDIC could be done away with and deposits not be insured: having the Treasury just print money to accomadate bank runs would really cause the overly-panicked to have to face the real pain of being scared and taking out their deposits…for every day the Treasury prints, the less purchasing power the withdrawlen deposits would have.

Floccina December 14, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Social security was signed into law in 1935 so I wonder if a lot of people started to get paid under the table at that time, making the unemployment numbers look worse than reality. I know a lot of people who work for cash now without reporting income. In fact a close friend of mine tends to get himself fired generally after about 6 months of work. He them collects unemployment while working for cash and looking for a job. This recension looks good to him because usually congress extends unemployment in recessions and he he has a few cash jobs lined up. (Not only that it is good psychologically for him because he this time he can blame getting fired on the economy).

Also when I lived in Honduras people there used to say that unemployment was at 40% but everyone seemed to be working. Evidently there was a huge informal labor market cause by there SS program.

…And is is not only the tax it is the paper work burden that it creates for employers.

It is hard to believe that more that real unemployment remained over 10 percent for 10 years.

Floccina December 14, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Social security was signed into law in 1935 so I wonder if a lot of people started to get paid under the table at that time, making the unemployment numbers look worse than reality. I know a lot of people who work for cash now without reporting income. In fact a close friend of mine tends to get himself fired generally after about 6 months of work. He them collects unemployment while working for cash and looking for a job. This recension looks good to him because usually congress extends unemployment in recessions and he he has a few cash jobs lined up. (Not only that it is good psychologically for him because he this time he can blame getting fired on the economy).

Also when I lived in Honduras people there used to say that unemployment was at 40% but everyone seemed to be working. Evidently there was a huge informal labor market cause by there SS program.

…And is is not only the tax it is the paper work burden that it creates for employers.

It is hard to believe that more that real unemployment remained over 10 percent for 10 years.

Floccina December 14, 2008 at 2:14 pm

@muirgeo
Are any of the libertarians here really upset that we have FDIC?

http://cafehayek.com/2008/12/franklin-fannie.html

Tyler at MR quotes a speech about the beginning of the FDIC, that alleges that FDR was opposed to federal deposit insurance on moral hazard grounds. But is it true?

Apparently so. Here is FDR in 1932 on deposit insurance:

It would lead to laxity in bank management and carelessness on the part of both banker and depositor. I believe that it would be an impossible drain on the Federal Treasury to make good any such guarantee. For a number of reasons of sound government finance, such plan would be quite dangerous.

He was on to something. Maybe he would have opposed the creation of Fannie and Freddie as well.

Marcus December 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

"We are about to complete a whole cycle of market deregulation boom and bust and Keyensian recovery that won't allow for the re-writing history and second guessing of history as we have seen of the last Republican Great Depression."
– Posted by: muirgeo | Dec 14, 2008 9:27:59 AM

I think you place too much emphasis on the rhetoric and not enough on the actual policies.

Clinton deregulated the economy, opened up free-trade and worked with a Republican congress to balance the budge.

Bush dramatically increased government spending, increased the structural debt, claims the war in Iraq is good for the economy and is spending hundreds of billions to 'rescue' failing companies.

Clearly judging from their actual policies, Bush is the Keynesian.

Obama has hired a set of free-trade economists some of whom have published papers on the benefits of tax-cuts over spending.

Floccina December 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

@muirgeo
Joe Martin actually claimed FDR should have been more like Calvin Coolidge. Didn't Calvin Coolidge lead us into the Depression. This guy did nothing for 8 years and then it hit the fan 5 months into Hoovers watch. Hoover is more like Obama and Coolidge like Bush in terms of causality. Plus Hoover did nothing for almost a year and a half in which time things got much worse.

You make a good point but I would not blame Coolidge and Harding but Wilson . Wilson entering into WWI made for a bad post WW I agreement and sighed the federal reserve into law.

It was not so much Coolidge and Harding that set the country up for failure but that Treaty of Versailles and the tremendous power given to a brand new inexperienced institution, the federal reserve and did the federal reserve ever mess up!

Marcus December 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Closing italics.

Marcus December 14, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Trying again

David Johnson December 14, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Okay you partisans, on both sides, take your blinders off. Bush gave us the biggest government in all of human history. Spending is so out of control that the numbers no longer fit into my calculator. We have a debt that is unpayable. But Obama thinks that government needs to do more! The complaints are that Bush was too free market, let the government shrink too much! The spending isn't big enough, the bailouts aren't big enough, the regulations aren't numerous enough.

A pox on both houses and those that apologize for them.

David Johnson December 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Let's try closing an tag.

David Johnson December 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Trying again. If this doesn't work, just give up.

Marcus December 14, 2008 at 5:23 pm

I tried, twice!

brotio December 14, 2008 at 6:32 pm

closing tag

Let's see how this worked.

Marcus December 14, 2008 at 7:17 pm

I've been placing the tags at the beginning of the post. I'll try the end of the post.

brotio December 14, 2008 at 7:28 pm

closing tag

Let's see how this worked.

Sam Grove December 14, 2008 at 8:52 pm

test

brotio December 14, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Wow. That's weird. I only tried to close the tag once, but it's got me shown twice.

Anyway, it looks like Sam solved the Riddle of the Open Italic. Who plays you when the movie is released, Sam?

Marcus December 14, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Ah! It was a missing /em tag. Good catch.

Sam Grove December 14, 2008 at 11:20 pm

I didn't know if it was a missing /em or /i, so I did both.

David Johnson December 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I think a closing /body might have done it…

Previous post:

Next post: