Social Darwinist Ernst Haeckel On This Day in History

 

Buy On Ebay

This day in history: Ernst Haeckel was born on this day in 1834. Haeckel was a German zoologist, naturalist, eugenicist, philosopher, physician, professor, marine biologist and artist. He discovered, described and named thousands of new species, mapped a genealogical tree relating all life forms and coined many terms in biology, including ecology, phylum, phylogeny, and Protista. Haeckel promoted and popularised Charles Darwin's work in Germany and developed the influential but no longer widely held recapitulation theory (human embryos replay the evolutionary history of their species as they develop). Haeckel produced drawings of embryos in various stages of evolution and they are now considered to be fraudulent...though this did not stop these drawings from languishing in text books for 100 years.  

Haeckel was also a eugenicist who also believed in euthanasia. "Haeckel admired the Spartans because they practiced infanticide of abnormal infants, to improve the biological quality of their race - 'a practice of advantage both to the infants destroyed and to the community.' [The Wonders of Life, cited in Gasman p91] He recommended that sickly adults should also be eliminated to stop them spreading their genes, and a commission should be set up to decide the fate of individuals. The unlucky ones would be put to death by painless and rapid poison (Wonders of Life pp 118-119, cited Gasman p 95)." Source

Haeckel believed that certain races were inferior, and thus closer to animals. "With Haeckel's encouragement and advice, a Dutch scientist, Bernelot Moens, tried to artificially inseminate a black woman with the sperm from an ape." [Godless by Ann Coulter]

Haeckel's mistakes were realized by others 100 years ago:

"Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was one of the earliest and most influential followers of Darwin in Germany. In his Generelle Morphologie, published in 1866, seven years after the Origin of Species first appeared, he applied the doctrine of evolution, and especially the theory of natural selection, to the whole field of vertebrate morphology. Beyond question Haeckel overapplied the theory and in a sense weakened its influence by his rather uncritical use of materials. His writings have been translated into most languages and 'are popularly believed to represent the best scientific thought on the matter.' Biologists today, however, are apt to look askance at Haeckel's works and to consider that they did more harm than good to Darwinism." [Readings in evolution, genetics, and eugenics - 1921]

See also 300 Books on Darwinism, Eugenics, Creation & Evolution on DVDrom

Kissed to Death on This Day in History

 

This day in history: On this day in 1909, 15 year old George Millet was fleeing six young women intent on giving him birthday kisses while carrying an ink eraser in his pocket. As the women moved in for their kisses, he fell forward and the eraser's point pierced his heart, killing him.

"George had been well liked amongst his female counterparts for his 'gentlemanly ways.' When it was discovered it was his 15th birthday, the girls decided to each kiss him 15 times. During Gertrude Robbins’ turn, the bashful teen resisted, falling on a metal pen eraser (a knife-shaped metal tool used to scrape ink off paper) and piercing an artery. He died half an hour later at the hospital. Gertrude was arrested and held for six hours before being released unconditionally at midnight." Source

Another peculiar death was caused in 2019 by a metal drinking straw. Metal straws may be viewed as eco-friendly, but for Elena Struthers-Gardner, it was deadly. "Sixty-year-old Elena Struthers-Gardner sustained fatal brain injuries after the freak accident at her Broadstone, Dorset residence on November 22, Daily Mail reports. According to the report, Elena -- who suffered mobility issues after a serious horse riding accident at the age of 21 -- collapsed while carrying a mason jar glass with a screw-top lid, and the 10-inch stainless steel straw attached to the lid stabbed her left eye socket and impaled her brain." Source

The tragic accident has renewed debate over bans on plastic straws.

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

Valentine's Day (and its Strange Past) on This Day in History

The Strange History of Valentine's Day by Cora Linn Daniels 1903

For more see The Number 13 & Other Superstitions - 100 Books on DVDROM

For a list of all of my digital books on disk and digital books (ebooks) click here 

St. Valentine's Day is the 14th of February and singularly ominous to lovers. Saint Valentine is said to have been a bishop who suffered martydom under the Roman emperor, Claudius, or else under Aurelian in 271. Like many another semi-Christian custom the day set apart to the memory of Saint Valentine in the Christian Calender is an old pagan festival, upon which our ancestors believed that the birds chose their mates for the coming year. This, at least, is the commonly received version of our modern custom of "choosing a valentine" on the 14th of February, and of sending a billet-doux or a fancy "valentine" through the mail to some favored one. Valentine is by several authorities believed to be a corruption of galantin (a lover, a dangler) and St. Valentine was chosen as the patron saint of the lovers on account of his name.

In old Rome the 15th of February was the festival of Juno Februata (Juno the fructifyer), and the Roman Church substituted St. Valentine for the heathen goddess. At that festival, called "Lupercalia", it was customary among other ceremonies, to put the names of young women into a box, from which they were drawn by the men as chance directed. The Christian clergy, finding it difficult or impossible to extirpate the pagan practice and in accordance with their general principle to eradicate the vestiges of pagan superstition by retaining the ceremonies, but modifying their significance, gave it a religious aspect by substituting the names of particular saints for those of the women. The saints whose names were drawn were proposed for imitation to the persons who received the slips of paper whereon they were written, and in many religious houses, where this custom still prevails, each member of the community preserves his billet during the year, as an incitement to imitate the virtues and invoke the special intercession of his holy Valentine.

This innovation, however, namely the substitution of the names of saints for the names of lovers, could not please the young people forever. Though the clergy repeatedly forbade the custom of Valentines and ordered the use of cards with Saints' names, the old pagan custom could not be abolished. The boys and girls triumphed over the Saints, and in the end the girls triumphed over the boys wresting from them their exclusive privilege of choosing mates.

This old custom of drawing names is to this day observed in many parts of England and Scotland in the following manner:

A number of slips of paper with the names of an equal number of men and women are shuffled and drawn, so each young man has a valentine in the person of a young maiden, and each maiden draws a young man whom she calls hers. The valentines give each other gifts, and often this little sport ends in love and marriage.

The first young man or maid you meet on the morning of St. Valentine's day will be your future husband or wife.

On St. Valentine's eve pin five bay-leaves on your pillow one in each corner and the other in the middle and you will dream of your Valentine.

If on St. Valentine's day the first person you meet is tall of stature and you sow flax that year, it will grow long and tall, but if the person is short, the flax will grow short and low.

All young ladies should be warned not to entertain gentlemen on the eve of St. Valentine's day, for if they do, they will lose their social position.

If you look down the well on the 14th of February you will see your sweetheart.

If the girl peeps through the keyhole on St. Valentine's Day and sees a cock and hen together, it is a sign that she will be married before the year is out.

If a girl looks out into the street the first thing on St. Valentine's morning, the number of animals which she sees, will tell her just how many years it will be before she marries.

If a girl in old Derbyshire did not have a kiss from a sweetheart the first thing on St. Valentine's morning, it was because she was "dusty" and they swept her well with a broom. This would bring her a lover.

All who walk on St. Valentine's day should wear a yellow crocus; it is the Saint's special flower and will ward off all evil in love.

If you chance on that day to meet a goldfinch or any yellow bird it is extremely lucky.

If you meet a bird in a scarlet vest on St. Valentine's day, you will follow your love to the beat of the drum.

It is very lucky to find your Valentine asleep. If you can steal a kiss, you will surely wed him or her.

If a girl receives a valentine and wishes to find out who sent it, let her write her name on the back of it and right below, the names of the persons whom she imagines might have sent it, then say the following verse:—

"If he who sent this valentine
Is named above with mine,
I pray good saint that by this line
I may his name divine."

Place this under the pillow and she will surely see the one who sent it.

If a maid walks abroad in the morning of St. Valentine's day, she may decide her future husband's position by the aid of the birds. If she first sees:

A blackbird: she will marry a clergyman.
A redbreast: a sailor.
A bunting: a sailor.
A goldfinch: a millionaire.
A yellowbird: a rich man.
A sparrow: love in a cottage.
A bluebird: poverty.
A crossbill: a quarrelsome husband.
A wryneck: she will never marry.
A flock of doves: good luck.

Never sign a valentine even with your own name, it will not be successful.

My Kindle book, The Dark History of Christmas, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

Witch-Hunter Cotton Mather on This Day in History

The Wonders of the Invisible World, Tryals of the New England Witches

This Day in History: American minister Cotton Mather died on this day in 1725, who was known famously for being at the heart of the Salem Witch Trials. Many have heard of the Witch Dunk test to determine whether someone was a witch, but there was also the Lord's Prayer test.

"George Burroughs, the only minister to be executed during the Trials, ran across this problem. He was standing at the gallows to be executed when he recited the Lord's Prayer to prove his innocence—it was believed that a witch (or warlock, in this case) would be unable to utter the holy words. People were momentarily convinced that the jury had wronged him, until...Cotton Mather told the crowd that the Devil allowed George Burroughs to say that prayer to make it seem as if he was innocent." ~Mental Floss

Nineteenth-century historian Charles Wentworth Upham put the blame on both Cotton and his father Increase Mather for the Salem Witch Trials:

"They are answerable… more than almost any other men have been, for the opinions of their time. It was, indeed a superstitious age; but made much more so by their operations, influence, and writings, beginning with Increase Mather's movement, at the assembly of Ministers, in 1681, and ending with Cotton Mather's dealings with the Goodwin children, and the account thereof which he printed and circulated far and wide. For this reason, then in the first place, I hold those two men responsible for what is called 'Salem Witchcraft.'"

However, Cotton Mather did believe in inoculation against the small pox epidemic whilst most did not. His scientific writings would go on to inspire Benjamin Franklin. It's too bad that the good he had done will always be overshadowed by the superstition that doomed the lives of many.

See also:

The Occult History of America by Lewis Spence 1920
https://thebookshelf2015.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-occult-history-of-america-by-lewis.html

200 Books on DVDROM about Satan the Devil & Witchcraft
https://thebookshelf2015.blogspot.com/2015/09/100-books-on-dvdrom-about-satan-devil.html

The State of Georgia on This Day in History

 

This Day in History: The colony of Georgia was founded on this day in 1733 by James Oglethorpe, making this both Georgia Day and Oglethorpe Day. Georgia was started to serve as a buffer between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida, and Oglethorpe wanted to use Georgia as a penal colony for prisoners who couldn't pay their debts. Georgia was named after King George II who was king at the time.

Did you know?: Georgia has more soil types than any other state.

Roswell Georgia had the first telephone service in 1901. 

Sandy Springs GA is home to more Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies per capita than any other city in the nation. Some of the global leaders located here are UPS, First Data, Focus Brands, Newell Rubbermaid, Centene and Axiall, Mercedes Benz, Cox Communications, and CBS.

Georgia is the largest of the state east of the Mississippi River.

The cotton gin was invented in Georgia by Eli Whitney in 1793.

The Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta is one of the largest in the world.

Coca Cola was invented in Atlanta in 1886.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is the busiest airport in the world. Hartsfield-Jackson is located on an abandoned racetrack once known as the Atlanta Speedway.

Georgia has 159 counties, the most in the US behind Texas.

Carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket on Sundays in Georgia is illegal.

There are at least 50 streets in Atlanta all with "Peachtree" in their name.

Gainesville, Georgia is the chicken capital of the world, however, it is illegal to eat chicken with a fork there.

In Columbus, Georgia, it is illegal to set one price for two beers. It is also illegal to carve your initials on a tree in Columbus.

Margaret Thatcher on This Day in History

Margaret Thatcher became the leader of the British Conservative Party on this day in 1975.

She also became the first woman to lead a majority party in the UK.

From Lawrence W. Reed:

A "Do-It-Yourself" Vision

In 1979, the Iron Lady assumed the premiership of a country riven with labor strife, racked by stagflation and run down by decades of nanny government. Britain struggled on all fronts as the sick man of Europe. For the most part, Thatcher didn’t propose to fix big problems through small tweaks as other cowardly or unprincipled politicians were suggesting. She set about, in her words, to “roll back the frontiers of the state.” She wanted to reinvigorate the country by restoring a culture of entrepreneurship and respect for private property. She reminded the nation of these objectives during her second of three terms when she declared,

I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society—from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.

A woman of convictions, she thought the unprincipled in government deserved to take a fall because they were too afraid to take a stand. She was more interested in doing what she thought was right than what was politically palatable, as evidenced in this well-known remark: “To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no-one believes, but to which no-one objects.”

At a policy meeting once, she famously pulled out a copy of F. A. Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty from her handbag, slammed it down on the table and declared, “This is what we believe!” On another occasion, she observed that

Marxists get up early in the morning to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.

She defied conventional wisdom about the “glass ceiling” women in British politics faced. And she understood the issues that ordinary people faced, noting in a 1971 interview that “I started life with two great advantages: no money, and good parents.”

Deregulation and Progress

Painfully at first, her policies wrenched the country from its doldrums to a new era of progress and confidence. Her eleven years in Britain’s top job proved that a vigorous program of privatization, deregulation, and tax reduction is an effective antidote for disastrous collectivism. She was increasingly skeptical of the European Union, partly because of its penchant for bureaucracy and regulation and partly because of its effort to homogenize the features that made each country special.

Thatcher died in 2013 but had she lived another seven years, she would likely be cheering Brexit, which finally happened last month. She told the House of Commons in 1991, “Our sovereignty does not come from Brussels—it is ours by right and by heritage.” In her 2002 book, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World she states:

"Europe" in anything other than the geographical sense is a wholly artificial construct. It makes no sense at all to lump together Beethoven and Debussy, Voltaire and Burke, Vermeer and Picasso, Notre Dame and St. Paul’s, boiled beef and bouillabaisse, and portray them as elements of a "European" musical, philosophical, artistic, architectural or gastronomic reality. If Europe charms us, as it has so often charmed me, it is precisely because of its contrasts and contradictions, not its coherence and continuity.

She wasn’t perfect, of course, and she compromised where she felt she had to. But she was right about the big picture, especially the evils of socialism and the virtues of freedom. As I wrote in this 2013 tribute at the time of her passing, titled “Ugliness from Ugly Ideas”:

[S]ocialists despised her because she stood up to them, questioned their false compassion, and dared to expose statism as the senseless, dehumanizing cult that it is. She rhetorically ripped the velvet glove from the iron fist and spoke of welfare-state socialism as a wolf in sheep’s clothes. Those are things state worshipers cannot abide. 

As this presidential election year in America unfolds, I can’t help but wonder what Margaret Thatcher would think of our politicians and their promises. No doubt she would decry Washington’s bad, bipartisan habits of spending and debt. I think, however, she would reserve special disdain for those vote-buying demagogues who traffic in class warfare and socialism of any stripe. I can easily see her scolding Bernie Sanders in terms like,

We already tried what you’re advocating and it failed miserably. Grow up, get a real job for a change and learn something from history and economics!

Her Thoughts on Socialism 

No need to take my word for it, though. I offer here some of Margaret Thatcher’s most incisive remarks about the socialism some Americans seem attracted to these days. They stretch across decades of her public life:

1. "It is good to recall how our freedom has been gained in this country—not by great abstract campaigns but through the objections of ordinary men and women to having their money taken from them by the State. In the early days, people banded together and said to the then Government, 'You shall not take our money before you have redressed our grievances.' It was their money, their wealth, which was the source of their independence against the Government."
2. "The philosophical reason for which we are against nationalization and for private enterprise is because we believe that economic progress comes from the inventiveness, ability, determination and the pioneering spirit of extraordinary men and women. If they cannot exercise that spirit here, they will go away to another free enterprise country which will then make more economic progress than we do. We ought, in fact, to be encouraging small firms and small companies, because the extent to which innovation comes through these companies is tremendous."
3. "I was attacked for fighting a rearguard action in defense of 'middle-class interests.'...Well, if 'middle class values' include the encouragement of variety and individual choice, the provision of fair incentives and rewards for skill and hard work, the maintenance of effective barriers against the excessive power of the State and a belief in the wide distribution of individual private property, then they are certainly what I am trying to defend. This is not a fight for 'privilege'; it is a fight for freedom—freedom for every citizen."
4. "Our challenge is to create the kind of economic background which enables private initiative and private enterprise to flourish for the benefit of the consumer, employee, the pensioner, and society as a whole...I believe we should judge people on merit and not on background. I believe the person who is prepared to work hardest should get the greatest rewards and keep them after tax. That we should back the workers and not the shirkers: that it is not only permissible but praiseworthy to want to benefit your own family by your own efforts."
5. "I place a profound belief—indeed a fervent faith—in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. On these is founded the whole case for the free society, for the assertion that human progress is best achieved by offering the freest possible scope for the development of individual talents, qualified only by a respect for the qualities and the freedom of others...For many years there has been a subtle erosion of the essential virtues of the free society. Self-reliance has been sneered at as if it were an absurd suburban pretention. Thrift has been denigrated as if it were greed. The desire of parents to choose and to struggle for what they themselves regarded as the best possible education for their children has been scorned."
6. "I do not believe, in spite of all this, that the people of this country have abandoned their faith in the qualities and characteristics which made them a great people. Not a bit of it. We are still the same people. All that has happened is that we have temporarily lost confidence in our own strength. We have lost sight of the banners. The trumpets have given an uncertain sound. It is our duty, our purpose, to raise those banners high, so that all can see them, to sound the trumpets clearly and boldly so that all can hear them. Then we shall not have to convert people to our principles. They will simply rally to those which truly are their own."
7. "I shall never stop fighting. I mean this country to survive, to prosper and to be free...I haven't fought the destructive forces of socialism for more than twenty years in order to stop now, when the critical phase of the struggle is upon us."
8. "What are the lessons then that we’ve learned from the last thirty years? First, that the pursuit of equality itself is a mirage. What's more desirable and more practicable than the pursuit of equality is the pursuit of equality of opportunity. And opportunity means nothing unless it includes the right to be unequal and the freedom to be different. One of the reasons that we value individuals is not because they're all the same, but because they're all different. I believe you have a saying in the Middle West: ‘Don’t cut down the tall poppies. Let them rather grow tall.’ I would say, let our children grow tall and some taller than others if they have the ability in them to do so. Because we must build a society in which each citizen can develop his full potential, both for his own benefit and for the community as a whole, a society in which originality, skill, energy and thrift are rewarded, in which we encourage rather than restrict the variety and richness of human nature."
9. "Let me give you my vision. A man’s right to work as he will to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as servant and not as master; these are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our others depend."
10. "Some socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important."
11. "The socialists tell us that there are massive profits in a particular industry and they should not go to the shareholders—but that the public should reap the benefits. Benefits? What benefits? When you take into public ownership a profitable industry, the profits soon disappear. The goose that laid the golden eggs goes broody. State geese are not great layers. The steel industry was nationalized some years ago in the public interest—yet the only interest now left to the public is in witnessing the depressing spectacle of their money going down the drain at a rate of a million pounds a day."
12. "There are others who warn not only of the threat from without, but of something more insidious, not readily perceived, not always deliberate, something that is happening here at home. What are they pointing to? They are pointing to the steady and remorseless expansion of the socialist State. Now none of us would claim that the majority of socialists are inspired by other than humanitarian and well-meaning ideals. At the same time few would, I think, deny today that they have made a monster that they can't control. Increasingly, inexorably, the State the socialists have created is becoming more random in the economic and social justice it seeks to dispense, more suffocating in its effect on human aspirations and initiative, more politically selective in its defense of the rights of its citizens, more gargantuan in its appetite—and more disastrously incompetent in its performance. Above all, it poses a growing threat, however unintentional, to the freedom of this country, for there is no freedom where the State totally controls the economy. Personal freedom and economic freedom are indivisible. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t lose one without losing the other."
13. "One of our principal and continuing priorities when we are returned to office will be to restore the freedoms which the Socialists have usurped. Let them learn that it is not a function of the State to possess as much as possible. It is not a function of the State to grab as much as it can get away with. It is not a function of the State to act as ring-master, to crack the whip, dictate the load which all of us must carry or say how high we may climb. It is not a function of the State to ensure that no-one climbs higher than anyone else. All that is the philosophy of socialism. We reject it utterly for, however well-intended, it leads in one direction only: to the erosion and finally the destruction of the democratic way of life."
14. "There is no such thing as 'safe' socialism. If it’s safe, it’s not socialism. And if it's socialism, it’s not safe. The signposts of socialism point downhill to less freedom, less prosperity, downhill to more muddle, more failure. If we follow them to their destination, they will lead this nation into bankruptcy."
15. "The economic success of the Western world is a product of its moral philosophy and practice. The economic results are better because the moral philosophy is superior. It is superior because it starts with the individual, with his uniqueness, his responsibility, and his capacity to choose. Surely this is infinitely preferable to the socialist-statist philosophy which sets up a centralized economic system to which the individual must conform, which subjugates him, directs him and denies him the right to free choice. Choice is the essence of ethics: if there were no choice, there would be no ethics, no good, no evil; good and evil have meaning only insofar as man is free to choose."
16. "In our philosophy the purpose of the life of the individual is not to be the servant of the State and its objectives, but to make the best of his talents and qualities. The sense of being self-reliant, of playing a role within the family, of owning one’s own property, of paying one’s way, are all part of the spiritual ballast which maintains responsible citizenship, and provides the solid foundation from which people look around to see what more they might do, for others and for themselves. That is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the State is responsible for everything, and no-one is responsible for the State."
17. "Once you give people the idea that all this can be done by the State, and that it is somehow second-best or even degrading to leave it to private people...then you will begin to deprive human beings of one of the essential ingredients of humanity—personal moral responsibility. You will in effect dry up in them the milk of human kindness. If you allow people to hand over to the State all their personal responsibility, the time will come—indeed it is close at hand—when what the taxpayer is willing to provide for the good of humanity will be seen to be far less than what the individual used to be willing to give from love of his neighbour. So do not be tempted to identify virtue with collectivism. I wonder whether the State services would have done as much for the man who fell among thieves as the Good Samaritan did for him?"
18. "Popular capitalism, which is the economic expression of liberty, is proving a much more attractive means for diffusing power in our society. Socialists cry “Power to the people,” and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State. To us Conservatives, popular capitalism means what it says: power through ownership to the man and woman in the street, given confidently with an open hand."
19. "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!' or 'I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!' 'I am homeless, the Government must house me!' and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbor and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn around and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."
20. "I set out to destroy socialism because I felt it was at odds with the character of the people. We were the first country in the world to roll back the frontiers of socialism, then roll forward the frontiers of freedom. We reclaimed our heritage; we are renewing it and carrying it forward."

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE's President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Parler and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is www.lawrencewreed.com.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Buy this book: The Folly of Socialism (40 Chapters) for 99 cents on Amazon

Financial Advisor Jim Cramer on This Day in History

 

Jim Cramer: "Bear Stearns is Fine"

This day in history: CNBC's Jim Cramer was born on this day in 1955. Cramer is easily one of the most well-known financial forecasters out there, and he has a net worth of around $100 million. With that sort of wealth you would think that he was great at picking stocks. However, according to the Guru Grades at CXO Advisory Group, Cramer has an accuracy of 46.8% on his picks...a little worse than a coin toss. By contrast, David Nassar has a 68.2 accuracy for his picks. 

Not only did Cramer fail to foretell the 2008 crash, he famously (or infamously) recommended investing in Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Lehman Brothers before the stocks fell in value significantly. On August 8, 2008, before the climax of the financial crisis of 2007-2008, Cramer recommended investing in bank stocks. On the March 11, 2008, episode of Cramer's show Mad Money, a viewer named Peter submitted the question "Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there?" Cramer responded "No! No! No! Bear Stearns is not in trouble. If anything, they're more likely to be taken over. Don't move your money from Bear." On March 14, 2008, the stock lost more than half of its value on news of a Fed bailout and $2/share takeover by JPMorgan Chase.

An article at The Motley Fool called Cramer "the closest thing to a walking, talking hazard for the individual investor there is." ~Why You Shouldn't Listen to Jim Cramer

"If there was ever a financial show which should have the words, 'For entertainment uses only' that would be Mad Money with Jim Cramer. It is no secret that Cramer's stock picks have done worse than the market averages. However, the other day, Cramer went off the deep end with a 14-minute rant of hyper-Keynesianism, historical revisionism of Herbert Hoover and blaming the Irish Potato famine of 1847 on laissez-faire.

Cramer says that the government cannot 'print money fast enough' to save us from the mess the Federal Reserve got us into. Next Cramer launches into a tirade on how Herbert Hoover was a do-nothing president who didn't try to end the Great Depression, which of course was total nonsense. Anybody familiar with the work of Murray Rothbard or British historian Paul Johnson knows that Herbert Hoover was hardly an advocate of laissez-faire. Largest peacetime increase in USA history (up to 1931) in domestic spending occurred under Hoover. Likewise, Hoover fathered the Agricultural Marketing Act, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Emergency Relief and Construction Act." Source

Of course, many economists have failed dramatically in the past. Thomas Malthus was wrong about his predictions on Population...as was Paul Ehrlich.

Economist Ravi Batra reached the number one spot on The New York Times Best Seller List in 1987 thanks to his book The Great Depression of 1990. That depression never happened. 

Irving Fisher was one of the great economists of the first half of the 20th century. However, he predicted a stock markey boom right before the 1929 stock market crash.