So now that we are one quarter away from a double dip... [Archive]

CosmicCowboy

08-12-2010, 08:17 AM

What gambit will the democrats try to pull off to save their asses in these mid-term elections? They could always tap the 400 or so remaining billion dollars in stimulus but we would not see effects in time for elections. It would be just words.

What are they gonna do?

We're gonna end up with this over idealistic spend-freak and a do-nothing congress, and play the game all over again in 2012.

Obama is obviously switching to full-out reelection mode. The spending is fucking sickening. Even I was saying "well bush spent..." but its already mid-2010 and we have done nothing to fix our economy.

And that fucking bull shit wall street reform essentially made the head of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary the most dominant future-deciding individuals this country has ever seen.

Where the fuck does it end?

Do the democrats pull off some crazy fast one over us and stay in power? Or are we headed for a 2006 all over again?

Why do you think they call Ben Bernanke "Helicopter Ben"?

http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ben-bernanke-money-drop.jpg

CavsSuperFan

08-12-2010, 10:16 AM

I don’t claim to understand everything about this 700 billion bailout…I only know that one day the money will run out & liberals will have to stop posting on the internet all day & get a job…

Ohhhh the horror…

http://www.jahsonic.com/MarlonBrando.jpg

boutons_deux

08-12-2010, 10:19 AM

I'm still waiting for you right-wing fuckers' SOLUTION to the deep, pervasive, LONG-TERM Banksters Great Depression.

Homeland Security

08-12-2010, 10:21 AM

CavsSuperFan

08-12-2010, 10:21 AM

boutons_deux - You are a very angry woman...

CosmicCowboy

08-12-2010, 10:29 AM

I'm still waiting for you right-wing fuckers' SOLUTION to the deep, pervasive, LONG-TERM Banksters Great Depression.

Thats easy. Buy property at least 40 miles from a major urban center. Put in fences, wells, irrigation, house, rain collection system as a fallback, plant orchards, gardens, grazing for hogs, goats, etc. stockpile lots of guns and ammo. Have a core group of competent productive people that will retreat to the compound when the shit hits the fan and defend it to the death.

Ooops, already doing that.

Spurminator

08-12-2010, 10:33 AM

boutons_deux

08-12-2010, 10:44 AM

CavsSuperVagina, GFY.

I suppose you're thrilled and delighted what the oligarchy has done to the country?

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 10:54 AM

Wing-nuts think Kenyesism actually slowed down the 'natural recovery' that would have occurred after the great depression....that's why they hate FDR...

He did.. that's why we didn't get out of the depression till AFTER ww2, and Keynes theorized that there would be a massive Recession after ww2 because the govt would cut spending. Well the govt did cut spending and there was a huge economic boom, and then the Austrians used it to scoff Keynes.

Also, the Keynesians couldn't explain the stagflation of the 70's.

CavsSuperFan

08-12-2010, 10:57 AM

You tell em boutons_deux…And how ….clambake…You gonna eat those fries…
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/lucass/fat_kid.jpg

clambake

08-12-2010, 10:59 AM

You tell em boutons_deux…And how ….clambake…You gonna eat those fries…
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/lucass/fat_kid.jpg

this post is genius!

move over, einstein!

boutons_deux

08-12-2010, 10:59 AM

I gave up all fast food and junk food many years ago. I won't touch that poison.

============

back to the economy:

Californians' income sees first decline since WWII

Farming communities of Fresno and Bakersfield are among the state's few bright spots

The personal income of California residents declined last year for the first time since World War II, state officials said Wednesday.

An analysis by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis found that statewide income fell by $40 billion in 2009 to $1.56 trillion. That's down about 2.5 percent from the previous year and even lower than the 2007 figure.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/08/11/ca_california_personal_income/index.html

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 11:00 AM

I know, they're not big fans of reality. :lmao

Reality is that there was a huge recession in 1920 and the fed did nothing, year later the american public was in an economic boom.

1929, the stock market crashed, Hoover pumped credit, and rose spending, nothing. the real effects of the depression didn't take in effect till the early part of the thirites. But basically Hoover and FDR both would implement economic controls on big buisiness by trying to collaborate price controls, having a bureau make buisiness decision on behalf of buisiness (NRA), Wagner act, forcing american enterprise to only work with labor unions, (see GM).

The fact is that FDR fucked us.

Nbadan

08-12-2010, 04:12 PM

Thats easy. Buy property at least 40 miles from a major urban center. Put in fences, wells, irrigation, house, rain collection system as a fallback, plant orchards, gardens, grazing for hogs, goats, etc. stockpile lots of guns and ammo. Have a core group of competent productive people that will retreat to the compound when the shit hits the fan and defend it to the death.

Ooops, already doing that.

Hunker down? That's your answer? That's what crazy people do...

SnakeBoy

08-12-2010, 04:23 PM

I was going to say I hope the GOP wins control of both the House and the Senate, but then I realized it doesn't matter. Both parties are one and the same sack of shit.

:clap :toast Much better than when you were showing Obama the love. Now you just need to get onboard with supporting Palin for President...she's got big ones and if it doesn't matter who's elected then you should always vote for the best breasts.

Nbadan

08-12-2010, 04:30 PM

He did.. that's why we didn't get out of the depression till AFTER ww2, and Keynes theorized that there would be a massive Recession after ww2 because the govt would cut spending. Well the govt did cut spending and there was a huge economic boom, and then the Austrians used it to scoff Keynes.

Also, the Keynesians couldn't explain the stagflation of the 70's.

Learn history from someone other than Glenn Beckkk

Keynes's ideas became widely accepted after WWII, and until the early 1970s, Keynesian economics provided the main inspiration for economic policy makers in Western industrialized countries.[14] Governments prepared high quality economic statistics on an ongoing basis and tried to base their policies on the Keynesian theory that had become the norm. In the early era of new liberalism and social democracy, most western capitalist countries enjoyed low, stable unemployment and modest inflation, an era called the Golden Age of Capitalism.

In terms of policy, the twin tools of post-war Keynesian economics were fiscal policy and monetary policy. While these are credited to Keynes, others, such as economic historian David Colander, argue that they are rather due to the interpretation of Keynes by Abba Lerner in his theory of Functional Finance, and should instead be called "Lernerian" rather than "Keynesian"

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)

Republican US President Richard Nixon even proclaimed "we are all Keynesians now".

MannyIsGod

08-12-2010, 05:42 PM

Reality is that there was a huge recession in 1920 and the fed did nothing, year later the american public was in an economic boom.

1929, the stock market crashed, Hoover pumped credit, and rose spending, nothing. the real effects of the depression didn't take in effect till the early part of the thirites. But basically Hoover and FDR both would implement economic controls on big buisiness by trying to collaborate price controls, having a bureau make buisiness decision on behalf of buisiness (NRA), Wagner act, forcing american enterprise to only work with labor unions, (see GM).

The fact is that FDR fucked us.

Wait what. I'd like some links on your Hoover history.

MannyIsGod

08-12-2010, 05:43 PM

Thats easy. Buy property at least 40 miles from a major urban center. Put in fences, wells, irrigation, house, rain collection system as a fallback, plant orchards, gardens, grazing for hogs, goats, etc. stockpile lots of guns and ammo. Have a core group of competent productive people that will retreat to the compound when the shit hits the fan and defend it to the death.

Ooops, already doing that.

Gotta get ready for those race wars! They're uh coming!

spursncowboys

08-12-2010, 06:21 PM

I get it now. when obama says he got us out of the worst of it, he meant he was responsible for only the positive. unemployment is at 9%, the fed is buying up more debt, and we are doing so well because of barry that he extends unemployment welfare.

Sportcamper

08-12-2010, 06:26 PM

I think the economy is improving…Maybe it’s in small increments…But in the business sectors that I know about things are picking up…

Obviously real estate in the Sun Belts has not stabilized & there are 1000's of shadow default inventory's that will eventual hit the market…Housing prices in these areas may still have a way to fall…Eventually the supply & demand will determine the value of a home vs. government intervention…

I am fairly optimistic...

spursncowboys

08-12-2010, 06:30 PM

what would make you think the economy is improving? I think because it has been so long, we are due for our economy to improve and grow. But there is no facts or logic to that.

Sportcamper

08-12-2010, 06:48 PM

I am not an economist…But as I stated, in the fields that I know about things are picking up…My employer has not authorized Over Time in three years & we are working 6 days a week…Friends in printing, home repair, building safety, automotive repair, welding, all see a small up tick in improvement….Even people in dentistry & the medical field claim that people are finally getting work done that they have put off…

Maybe the “new normal” will mean no charge cards, grocery store coupons, one car families, 800 sq ft houses, less dining out...But the U.S.A. is not going down the tubes…The glass is half full not half empty…

ElNono

08-12-2010, 06:52 PM

:clap :toast Much better than when you were showing Obama the love.

When was that?

Now you just need to get onboard with supporting Palin for President...

If I have to pick between Barry and Palin, I'm definitely sticking with Barry.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:10 PM

Wait what. I'd like some links on your Hoover history.

It started when FDR was still a governor in Albany, and Herbert Hoover occupied the White House. Hoover had initially made his name steering populations through crises, feeding starving Belgians during the First World War and, later, stewarding the South through the great flood of the Mississippi. As commerce secretary, Hoover always criticized his president, Calvin Coolidge, for using his office too sparingly. When the crash hit on his own watch, Hoover therefore jumped to act, using the office, or doing what he could to undermine Congress. Hoover signed off on a Republican tariff and created the Reconstruction Finance Corp. Around about the equivalent of now in the 1929 crisis—the autumn of that year—he summoned business leaders to Washington and persuaded them not to drop wages, the traditional next step during a downturn.

Some Hoover measures helped, in minor ways. The RFC supplied liquidity to a cash-short banking system. But other Hoover steps hurt. As I write this, the spotlight of concern is shifting to Europe and its flailing markets. Hoover's tariff seemed to confirm to Europe precisely what Mussolini and Hitler were telling it—the United States will shut you out. The condition upon which Hoover agreed to Smoot-Hawley was to take away power from Congress, with a new tariff commission calibrating rates. In exchange for hurting Congress and lobbyists, he hurt the world. Hoover also tended to blame to stock market. Like the Bush administration's own Chris Cox of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Hoover sought to stop short selling and berated traders as traitors to stability. This may have halted such sales, but it depressed regular stocks. In losing shorts, owners lost a crucial markets barometer.

It is the perversity of Hoover's wage policy, however, that Depression scholars have been warning about lately. Hoover insisted that industrial leaders keep wages high. Business complied—real average hourly earnings in manufacturing actually increased from 1929 in 1931, even as production dropped by nearly half. The action at the time seemed counterintuitive to business—in the last downturn, 1920 and 1921, wages had dropped. Now, however, companies pushed those wages higher partly because they believed, as Henry Ford was preaching, that wage increases might generate productivity gains to make the move worth it. But corporate leaders also acted, as UCLA's Lee Ohanian has shown, out of fear, because Hoover made it clear he was the only thing between them and unionization. In 1932, Hoover also signed the Davis-Bacon Act, which increased upward pressure on wages by insisting that public-sector jobs receive prevailing wages. Hoover bullied industrial America into a corner where it could do nothing but lay people off. Hence, there were 2 in 10 unemployed instead of 1 in 10. Ohanian concludes that Hoover's wage policy "accounts for much of the depth of the Depression."

Where Hoover used suasion, Roosevelt tended simply to snatch power. In his first inaugural address, FDR explained that he would use "broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe." When it came to labor prices, FDR and the New Dealers formalized Hoover's error in the form of the National Recovery Administration. The NRA gave big firms advantage over small fry and applied its own upward pressure through a minimum wage. In the previous depression, unemployment had lasted under two years. This time, 2 in 10 were still unemployed five years post-crash.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/10/02/wall-street-the-great-depression-hoover-roosevelt-and-the-unintended-consequences-of-presidential-action.html

THis whole lie about how Hoover was a laisezz faire free market guy guru is a complete fabrication...

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:29 PM

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/government-expenses-growth-1902-2014.png

MannyIsGod

08-12-2010, 07:32 PM

Yeah, you didn't provide anything that showed Hoover doing what a Keynesian would do.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:41 PM

Yeah, you didn't provide anything that showed Hoover doing what a Keynesian would do.

Yeah i did. He pumped credit into the market to stimulate investments.
"The RFC supplied liquidity to a cash-short banking system. "-from that same article..

The agency gave $2 billion in aid to state and local governments and made loans to banks, railroads, farm mortgage associations, and other businesses. The loans were nearly all repaid. It was continued by the New Deal and played a major role in handling the Great Depression in the United States and setting up the relief programs that were taken over by the New Deal in 1933.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation

MannyIsGod

08-12-2010, 07:43 PM

ChumpDumper

08-12-2010, 07:43 PM

lol at the graph editorial.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:45 PM

lol at the graph editorial.

I don't think the editorial is important so much as the relevant data. Judge that is all i'm asking.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:47 PM

True, you are right about that and that was actually (as even your link points out) a good thing. He didn't do enough of that sort and his idiocy in other departments was far worse than the good he did there.

Well.. FDR increased the program and it prolonged the depression because he also implemented hoovers wage controls under the NRA act.

Hoover basically distorted the free market and raised tarriffs.

MannyIsGod

08-12-2010, 07:48 PM

Wage controls are bad. I think thats something we can agree on. In a time of a recession depression its much better to keep a worker at a lower rate than it is to try to enforce an arbitrary unsustainable number and in essence force the job to be lost.

ChumpDumper

08-12-2010, 07:49 PM

I don't think the editorial is important so much as the relevant data. Judge that is all i'm asking.Well, it shows that there has been government spending over time.

There is nothing else on the graph.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:52 PM

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:53 PM

Well, it shows that there has been government spending over time.

There is nothing else on the graph.

Don't worry about it then, I didn't think you knew what we were discussing anyway.

DMX7

08-12-2010, 07:53 PM

"Lasting depressions are ALWAYS caused by increased government involvement"

:lmao

4>0rings

08-12-2010, 07:54 PM

Can they let some more messicans in?

ChumpDumper

08-12-2010, 07:54 PM

Don't worry about it then, I didn't think you knew what we were discussing anyway.I know what you are discussing -- your argument is woefully incomplete.

Sorry it didn't work out for you.

Let me know if you ever figure out what's missing.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:55 PM

"Lasting depressions are ALWAYS caused by increased government involvement"

:lmao

Crash of 1920 vs Crash of 29 don't find it funny.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 07:56 PM

I know what you are discussing -- your argument is woefully incomplete.

Sorry it didn't work out for you.

I don't intend to convince you.

ChumpDumper

08-12-2010, 07:57 PM

I don't intend to convince you.Mission accomplished, then :toast.

CosmicCowboy

08-12-2010, 08:00 PM

I find the 80 year late Monday Morning Quarterbacks on both sides of the previous depression reaction/result pathetic and irrelevant. Apples/Oranges.

DMX7

08-12-2010, 08:01 PM

The audaciousness is hysterical.

Wage controls are one thing. Stimulus is another. That stimulus is slowing down the recovery is pure delusion.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 08:08 PM

Mission accomplished, then :toast.

Thank you.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 08:10 PM

The audaciousness is hysterical.

Wage controls are one thing. Stimulus is another. That stimulus is slowing down the recovery is pure delusion.

RFC was a stimulus tool, infact, the graph showed that the govt spent during the recession under Hoover aside from just wage controls. What's so hard about that.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 08:10 PM

I find the 80 year late Monday Morning Quarterbacks on both sides of the previous depression reaction/result pathetic and irrelevant. Apples/Oranges.

Would you rather talk about secret muslim heritages??? You know that's probably more pertinent, no??

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 08:18 PM

True, you are right about that and that was actually (as even your link points out) a good thing. He didn't do enough of that sort and his idiocy in other departments was far worse than the good he did there.

Who says that if i post an article I must agree with 100 percent of it's content. My purpose for the article was to illustrate how Hoover actually increased govt spending and hindered the free market.

Pumping credit might have been good, but that can't be proven because overall we didn't get to see if it worked since the economy progressively worsened. If anything, the money just prolonged the process of the market to reallocate sources and adjust because it propped up a bad system.

Now if you want to see how govt contraction helped an economy look at 1945. Keynes predicted that there would be a recession because the money supply would contract, and he was proven wrong. So if anything. THis graph showed how Govt spending actually did prolong a recession. Also look at the 1920 part. There was a crash in that year and the fed did nothing, with in a year the economy reshaped and recoverd.

If anything.. you also forgot to mention that the article states that FDR expanded Hoovers policies, so if anything, FDR also fucked up recovery.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 08:19 PM

The audaciousness is hysterical.

Wage controls are one thing. Stimulus is another. That stimulus is slowing down the recovery is pure delusion.

Is this sentence your evidence only??:lol

spursncowboys

08-12-2010, 08:24 PM

The audaciousness is hysterical.

Wage controls are one thing. Stimulus is another. That stimulus is slowing down the recovery is pure delusion.
So far all the stimulus has done is prolong. What is delusional about everything the stimulus was supposed to do did not work.

Nbadan

08-12-2010, 08:33 PM

So far all the stimulus has done is prolong. What is delusional about everything the stimulus was supposed to do did not work.

...ppffff....the stimulus has created millions of jobs...the stimulus was not designed to alleviate all the nation's problems but to keep the economy from going over the edge, which it has.....

ElNono

08-12-2010, 08:41 PM

If anything, the graph shows that they didn't spend enough. Once the war shot the debt up to about 120% of the GDP, that's where the economy kicked in again. Notice also how the fact that you have high debt doesn't necessarily mean that you will have to resort to inflation to solve your problems.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

ElNono

08-12-2010, 09:30 PM

Fix the economy? Pffft. There is no "fixing" the economy. All America is doing is what other insolvent countries have done --- postpone the inevitable. The country can either have austerity now or have austerity imposed upon it later. Whenever that comes, there will be a sharp decline in Americans' standard of living. And by that I don't mean 10% unemployment; I mean something more like half the population falling into poverty, with no social services available to ameliorate it.

When that comes, there will be widespread social unrest. And by that I don't street marches or Tea Party rallies or people saying mean things about the President. I mean widespread burning of cities and killing. I mean total chaos where those who aren't prepared to kill will be easy prey for those who are. The bankrupt government will be impotent and irrelevant, a government in name only, with no control over its putative territory.

Out of that chaos, some group will rise up, and through generous distribution of ruthless violence take back control of the streets. This will be the new government. And out of gratitude for pulling whatever is left of society, out of the flames, this new government will be afforded whatever authority it says it needs.

Then there will the identification of scapegoats -- the ones who "did this to us." The leaders of those groups will be exterminated and their followers will be persecuted.

My focus is to ensure that the authoritarian dictatorship which takes hold is right-wing, and that the leftists are the ones exterminated, rather than the other way around. That seems doable in this part of the country; in places like California and New England it will be reversed, and so it will be necessary to go to war with them. This culture has always needed a common enemy against which to fight in order to meet its potential.

That would make a good plot for a B movie in the Syfy channel...

The most likely scenario would be some Katrina-like looting in the poorer regions while the dollar is devalued and then followed by stabilization. While it's true that the actual value of your assets would decrease somewhat (depending on the severity of the devaluation), the upshot is that now that your labor is cheaper, all those manufacturing jobs sent overseas would come right back, plus the added benefit that your services industry can offer a cheaper value.

The US is in much different shape than poorer nations to face a crisis like that for two reasons: 1) They have a very high amount of leverage since a lot of other countries' currencies are backed by the US dollar. 2) The US is in the forefront of IP, meaning that they would be able to manufacture almost anything if it's cost-efficient to do so (there's no IP tax, which is a problem for undeveloped countries).

So, yeah, there's an ugly side to a crisis like that, but there's also an upshot to it.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 09:34 PM

ElNono

08-12-2010, 09:37 PM

except it was the money spending that contracted first and then the boom happened.

Do you have a graph for that?

How do you know it wasn't the spending expansion?

The economy in America was now beginning to shows signs of recovery and the unemployment rate was lowering following the abysmal year of 1938. The biggest shift towards recovery, however, came with the decision of Germany to invade France at the beginning of WWII. After France had been defeated, the U.S. economy would skyrocket in the months following. France’s defeat meant that Britain and other allies would look to the U.S. for large supplies of materials for the war. The need for these materials created a huge spurt in production, thus leading to promising amount of employment in America. Moreover, Britain chose to pay for their materials in gold. This stimulated the gold inflow and raised the monetary base, which in turn, stimulated the American economy to its highest point since the summer of 1929 when the depression began.[26]
By the end of 1941, before American entry into the war, defense spending and military mobilization had started one of the greatest booms in American history thus ending the last traces of unemployment.[26]

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 09:44 PM

Do you have a graph for that?

How do you know it wasn't the spending expansion?

The economy in America was now beginning to shows signs of recovery and the unemployment rate was lowering following the abysmal year of 1938. The biggest shift towards recovery, however, came with the decision of Germany to invade France at the beginning of WWII. After France had been defeated, the U.S. economy would skyrocket in the months following. France’s defeat meant that Britain and other allies would look to the U.S. for large supplies of materials for the war. The need for these materials created a huge spurt in production, thus leading to promising amount of employment in America. Moreover, Britain chose to pay for their materials in gold. This stimulated the gold inflow and raised the monetary base, which in turn, stimulated the American economy to its highest point since the summer of 1929 when the depression began.[26]
By the end of 1941, before American entry into the war, defense spending and military mobilization had started one of the greatest booms in American history thus ending the last traces of unemployment.[26]

because it was keynes who predicted that once the govt would stop the spending we'd have a recession instead of a boom.

DMX7

08-12-2010, 09:48 PM

Is this sentence your evidence only??:lol

No, that would be common sense. So I could see why you missed it. :lol

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 09:53 PM

Do you have a graph for that?

How do you know it wasn't the spending expansion?

The economy in America was now beginning to shows signs of recovery and the unemployment rate was lowering following the abysmal year of 1938. The biggest shift towards recovery, however, came with the decision of Germany to invade France at the beginning of WWII. After France had been defeated, the U.S. economy would skyrocket in the months following. France’s defeat meant that Britain and other allies would look to the U.S. for large supplies of materials for the war. The need for these materials created a huge spurt in production, thus leading to promising amount of employment in America. Moreover, Britain chose to pay for their materials in gold. This stimulated the gold inflow and raised the monetary base, which in turn, stimulated the American economy to its highest point since the summer of 1929 when the depression began.[26]
By the end of 1941, before American entry into the war, defense spending and military mobilization had started one of the greatest booms in American history thus ending the last traces of unemployment.[26]

also.. the war economy shifted into a command economy, private investments contracted.. it wasn't until all the controls of the war economy and the depression did private investment pickup around mid 1947.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 09:55 PM

:lol

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

U make an excellent argument, i think i should counter it with weightier evidence like, :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

ElNono

08-12-2010, 10:13 PM

because it was keynes who predicted that once the govt would stop the spending we'd have a recession instead of a boom.

Strawman and incorrect at that.

Keynes actually advocated reducing the spending once the economy was back to normal and out of recession.

But back to what I asked and you diligently avoided, do you have one of your charts showing unemployment vs spending in the 30's and 40's? Let's see when unemployment started to go down and what was the spending then.

ElNono

08-12-2010, 10:19 PM

also.. the war economy shifted into a command economy, private investments contracted.. it wasn't until all the controls of the war economy and the depression did private investment pickup around mid 1947.

Were people employed? Was the economy recovering and getting out of the recession?

Obviously private investors are going to wait to see that the economy is back on it's feet before throwing dollars into it. Especially after getting burned in the 30's. That doesn't mean that the economy was not in a good shape by then.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 10:22 PM

Were people employed? Was the economy recovering and getting out of the recession?

Obviously private investors are going to wait to see that the economy is back on it's feet before throwing dollars into it. Especially after getting burned in the 30's. That doesn't mean that the economy was not in a good shape by then.

People were employed by the govt.. it wouldn't be a real recovery because the war command economy wouldn't last,.. it was temporary. The question is whether FDR's programs worked. They didnt.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 10:24 PM

Strawman and incorrect at that.

Keynes actually advocated reducing the spending once the economy was back to normal and out of recession.

But back to what I asked and you diligently avoided, do you have one of your charts showing unemployment vs spending in the 30's and 40's? Let's see when unemployment started to go down and what was the spending then.

I meant to say keynesians.. and no it wasn't a strawman, they did predict a bust after ww2 because they thought that all those people coming back to america from fighting would not find jobs, and that the govt would have to continue to pump credit.

That was their actual prediction.

When this war comes to an end, more than one out of every two workers will depend directly or indirectly upon military orders. We shall have some 10 million service men to throw on the labor market. [DRH comment: he nailed that number.] We shall have to face a difficult reconversion period during which current goods cannot be produced and layoffs may be great. Nor will the technical necessity for reconversion necessarily generate much investment outlay in the critical period under discussion whatever its later potentialities. The final conclusion to be drawn from our experience at the end of the last war is inescapable--were the war to end suddenly within the next 6 months, were we again planning to wind up our war effort in the greatest haste, to demobilize our armed forces, to liquidate price controls, to shift from astronomical deficits to even the large deficits of the thirties--then there would be ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 10:26 PM

ElNono

08-12-2010, 10:29 PM

People were employed by the govt.. it wouldn't be a real recovery because the war command economy wouldn't last,.. it was temporary. The question is whether FDR's programs worked. They didnt.

Of course it was temporary. That's exactly what Keynes preached: spending during recession, make up for the extra spending when the economy flourishes.
Obviously, Keynes critics love to gloss over the second part.

ElNono

08-12-2010, 10:32 PM

I meant to say keynesians.. and no it wasn't a strawman, they did predict a bust after ww2 because they thought that all those people coming back to america from fighting would not find jobs, and that the govt would have to continue to pump credit.

That was their actual prediction.

What they predicted is irrelevant. I asked you to please post a chart of unemployment vs spending in the era, so we could determine wether your claim that the economy recovered before or after shrinking spending...

You obviously rather deflect the conversation when addressing one of your own claims.

ElNono

08-12-2010, 10:38 PM

El nono, even the keynesians knew that the command economy of WW2 wasn't a real recovery, and that it would have to be sustained because all those jobs wouldn't have govt spending to keep them afloat like during the war, and that millions of soldiers would flood the labor market.

Sorry guy, history is not on your side.

Because you say so? I asked you to back it up with real numbers, and you keep on pouring in excuses.

It would be more plausible if you were to tell me that the economy really recovered because of the influx of gold that allowed us to back up more money, and thus expand our monetary base. I personally think THAT is actually the main reason for the recovery, even more than the over the top spending. But cutting spending during a recession definitely doesn't enter into the realm of solutions.

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 10:48 PM

Ignignokt

08-12-2010, 10:49 PM

Infact.. unemployment went back to pre 1929 levels of unemployment with less govt spending.

ElNono

08-12-2010, 11:02 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif

when total spending dropped, in theory the unemployment rate should have gone back to the upper teens like in the 30's but instead it remained healthy with less spending.

Whose theory is that? Yours?

It obviously shouldn't had, because we were not in a recession like in the 30's.

And you can see in the graph that the recovery started in 1939, not 'after the war once we reduced spending'

Infact.. unemployment went back to pre 1929 levels of unemployment with less govt spending.

It has nothing to do with the spending. It has to do with being in recession or not. It makes sense: Once the recession was over we went back to unemployment levels pre-recession, and we also reduced our spending to pre-recession amounts.

Over the top spending got the economy out of the recession and back on track. Who would have thought?

ElNono

08-12-2010, 11:23 PM

Actually, I'll make a correction: we didn't reduce our spending all the way down to pre-recession levels. And I think that was a mistake, and a failure to completely apply Keynes economics. Obviously, the fear was still recent of getting burned again, but with the economy flourishing, it was certainly doable.

Ultimately this is the biggest criticism you can make: Politicians never cared to actually cut back enough once the economy is on track. But that's really not Keynes fault, is it?

SnakeBoy

08-12-2010, 11:23 PM

When was that?

I seem to recall you were pretty gung ho on Obama during the election. Am I mistaken?

If I have to pick between Barry and Palin, I'm definitely sticking with Barry.

Suit yourself. If those are my choices I'm voting for the one with the best tits.

ElNono

08-12-2010, 11:28 PM

I seem to recall you were pretty gung ho on Obama during the election. Am I mistaken?

Well, if the options on the table are Barry vs Palin, then I'll take Barry every time. That doesn't mean Barry is any better/different than your average DC politician. I also have to say it was incredibly funny to counter the unrealistic stuff posted by GOP residents at the time (remember the daily polls? or whottt and his gut feeling?)

Suit yourself. If those are my choices I'm voting for the one with the best tits.

Hey, I'm not going to judge anybody else's criteria for voting.

SnakeBoy

08-12-2010, 11:36 PM

Well, if the options on the table are Barry vs Palin, then I'll take Barry every time.

The choice was Barry vs McCain. Or Biden vs Palin if you want to compare apples to apples.

ElNono

08-12-2010, 11:47 PM

The choice was Barry vs McCain. Or Biden vs Palin if you want to compare apples to apples.

Well, McCain was going nowhere until Palin received the nomination. Too much Bush shadowing him.

Not that Barry is that much different. But I'm the kind of guy that like to see transition between the left and the right, as much as possible. Keeps things somewhat in the center, which I feel more comfortable at. That's why I want the GOP to win the Congress elections in November.

Nbadan

08-12-2010, 11:49 PM

So your for obstructionism?

ElNono

08-12-2010, 11:52 PM

So your for obstructionism?

Was that question for me?

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 12:26 AM

Whose theory is that? Yours?

It obviously shouldn't had, because we were not in a recession like in the 30's. You're right, we were at that time in a temporary phase known as a command economy, but you are completely missing the point. The recovery was all in part because of GOVT demand and spending not because of real market demand between individuals , the producers were having their supplies being bought by the GOVT for war, after the War, the govt would cease to stop spending for the simple fact that there was no war.

PRIVATE INVESTMENTS shrank during that time, so in this case Keynesian theorist were afraid that we would go back to a bust. You are missing this key point, the economy recovery was only due to boost in GOVT demand, in 1939, buisinesses were being asked to fund the war on both fronts.

It has nothing to do with the spending. It has to do with being in recession or not. It makes sense: Once the recession was over we went back to unemployment levels pre-recession, and we also reduced our spending to pre-recession amounts.

You can't say that if you're maintaining Keynesian theory, it has everything to do with spending. The key consumer of that command economy was the govt, not the consumer, once the govt contracts then you go back to pre ww2 recession.

Over the top spending got the economy out of the recession and back on track. Who would have thought?

Over the top economic spending did get us to recover because of the circumstance of war, but to have the economy recover, you had to remove the economic controls of the war and the depression like price controls. The actual removal of govt led to the expansion of the economy, the actual economy boom started in 1947.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 12:36 AM

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 12:40 AM

Concerning the 1939 recovery, that was due to spikes in commodities because Britian and Germany were fighting wars. It had nothing to do with economic policies of FDR.

SnakeBoy

08-13-2010, 12:48 AM

Not that Barry is that much different. But I'm the kind of guy that like to see transition between the left and the right, as much as possible. Keeps things somewhat in the center, which I feel more comfortable at. That's why I want the GOP to win the Congress elections in November.

Well you and I agree on something then. We are better off when power is split between the branches.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 12:57 AM

You're right, we were at that time in a temporary phase known as a command economy, but you are completely missing the point. The recovery was all in part because of GOVT demand and spending not because of real market demand between individuals , the producers were having their supplies being bought by the GOVT for war, after the War, the govt would cease to stop spending for the simple fact that there was no war.

The point doesn't escape me at all. That's exactly what Keynes espoused, that by stimulating the economy FROM THE GOVERNMENT you would end the recession. It's obvious private investment wasn't interested in pumping money into the economy, otherwise you wouldn't have a recession in the first place.

PRIVATE INVESTMENTS shrank during that time, so in this case Keynesian theorist were afraid that we would go back to a bust. You are missing this key point, the economy recovery was only due to boost in GOVT demand, in 1939, buisinesses were being asked to fund the war on both fronts.

Of course it shrank. Private investors got burned by the bank runs and were really wary of putting money into the system again. You had to give them either some serious guarantees or an investing opportunity too good to pass up.
By the end of the 30's, the government was actually paying bonuses for hiring people as part of the stimulus at the time. Coupled with the high demand created by the war, it finally convinced investors that they could make a lot of money both from the enterprise and the government. In other words, the stimulus when coupled with the high demand, created an environment that was too good to pass up for investors.

You can't say that if you're maintaining Keynesian theory, it has everything to do with spending. The key consumer of that command economy was the govt, not the consumer, once the govt contracts then you go back to pre ww2 recession.

It was in response to your argument that the economy only recovered once we cut spending. It has nothing to do with spending at that point, because our economy was already in the upswing. Once you get to that point, cutting spending makes sense since the economy doesn't require any extraordinary stimulus at that point, and so you go back to the pre-recession economic state.

Over the top economic spending did get us to recover because of the circumstance of war, but to have the economy recover, you had to remove the economic controls of the war and the depression like price controls. The actual removal of govt led to the expansion of the economy, the actual economy boom started in 1947.

No, you do that once you already recovered and you're in the upswing, in order to stabilize the economy. There's simply no more need for an artificial stimulus at that point. Where there people wary that by withdrawing the stimulus too early we would fall back into recession? Sure. Heck, it actually happened to Japan in the 90's. But it's merely opinion. Reality dictates that the economic recovery started in '39 and improved during the war, where the spending spiked to 120% of the GDP. It was an artificial measure that served to regain investment and get the economy back on track. Once it served it's purpose, it was done away with.

If anything, the war was the perfect excuse to shoot up the debt to unimaginable levels.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 01:05 AM

This is why the unemployment figures of 1940-45 are bad to use when talking about true economic recovery.

1. Private investments continued to contract and flounder during WW2
2. A huge vasts of Men were removed from the labor market to fight the war, that's why UNEMPLOYMENT WENT DOWN TO UNREAL LEVELS. LOL!!
3. The Majority of products that were being purchased during the command economy of ww2 were planes, ships, tanks, bullets, etc.. things that were to be destroyed. If you think a longterm economic model based on providing goods to be destroyed is sound, you're insane. You could not have an economic system based on these products to hold a stable and prosperous era, it's only momentary.

You don't understand what Keynes proposed to combat recession at all. He didn't propose a long term economic plan. He proposed a short, artificial stimuli to regain consumer and investor confidence in the system.

Recession is mostly a byproduct of losing trust in the system. People are wary to spend money, which makes investment dwindle, which makes the economy drag down even deeper and creates more lack of trust. Eventually you need to do something to regain that trust and go back to your normal economic life.

SnakeBoy

08-13-2010, 01:13 AM

What were the american people doing with their money during the time you two are arguing about?

ElNono

08-13-2010, 01:14 AM

Concerning the 1939 recovery, that was due to spikes in commodities because Britian and Germany were fighting wars. It had nothing to do with economic policies of FDR.

If that's all it took, why did the government need to go that deep into the red and hire so many people? Obviously, it took more than high demand to regain confidence from some businesses that were pretty angry after the second New Deal of 37-39...

The government began heavy military spending in 1940, and started drafting millions of young men that year;[21] by 1945, 17 million had entered service to their country. But that was not enough to absorb all the unemployed. During the war, the government subsidized wages through cost-plus contracts. Government contractors were paid in full for their costs, plus a certain percentage profit margin. That meant the more wages a person was paid the higher the company profits since the government would cover them plus a percentage.[22] Using these cost-plus contracts in 1941-1943, factories hired hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers and trained them, at government expense. The military's own training programs concentrated on teaching technical skills involving machinery, engines, electronics and radio, preparing soldiers and sailors for the post-war economy.[23]

ChumpDumper

08-13-2010, 01:14 AM

Wow, I didn't think gtown's knowledge of Keynes would be so fundamentally wrong.

He continues to impress.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 01:14 AM

What were the american people doing with their money during the time you two are arguing about?

Not spending it...

SnakeBoy

08-13-2010, 01:16 AM

Not spending it...

Greatest Generation...real patriots!

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 02:48 AM

Wow, I didn't think gtown's knowledge of Keynes would be so fundamentally wrong.

He continues to impress.

That's cuz I'm arguing about economic recovery being substantial with keynesian policies and wether it actually sparked the post war boom, and not about what is keynesian policies.

But not that you're an impartial observer or wether you matter.

What a waste of post on a waste of a poster...

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 02:51 AM

If that's all it took, why did the government need to go that deep into the red and hire so many people? Obviously, it took more than high demand to regain confidence from some businesses that were pretty angry after the second New Deal of 37-39...

The government began heavy military spending in 1940, and started drafting millions of young men that year;[21] by 1945, 17 million had entered service to their country. But that was not enough to absorb all the unemployed. During the war, the government subsidized wages through cost-plus contracts. Government contractors were paid in full for their costs, plus a certain percentage profit margin. That meant the more wages a person was paid the higher the company profits since the government would cover them plus a percentage.[22] Using these cost-plus contracts in 1941-1943, factories hired hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers and trained them, at government expense. The military's own training programs concentrated on teaching technical skills involving machinery, engines, electronics and radio, preparing soldiers and sailors for the post-war economy.[23]

Don't be dense, the govt didn't need to go deep into the red for recovery purposes, but because we were fighting a war, plain and simple. I don't dispute that.

The commodities spike happened without the US govt doing anything about it.

Winehole23

08-13-2010, 03:06 AM

Not spending it...Last week i was shopping on SoCo (in AUstin, TX) with my mom before lunch She bought a small Josefina (Aguilar) thing at the Turquoise Door. At a nearby third-worldish bric-a-brac place, I saw a poster. Sort of a government propaganda thingy. It looked South Asian. It exhorted people to eat right, pay their debts, practice sexual fidelity, and shun all violence and intoxicants -- and all unnecessary purchases. (One or more of these is unapplicable to modern Americans.)

It may take awhile for our hard edged libertarian culture to reign itself in, having been raised on a steady regime of more or less orgiastic consumption.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 03:18 AM

The point doesn't escape me at all. That's exactly what Keynes espoused, that by stimulating the economy FROM THE GOVERNMENT you would end the recession. It's obvious private investment wasn't interested in pumping money into the economy, otherwise you wouldn't have a recession in the first place.

This had nothing to do with keynes stimulus doctrine as to what im about to say, so that you don't get confused.

You are failing to see why private investment wasn't interested in investing. Private business were to afraid to invest because of FDR's rigid economic controls that were cut after his death in 1945. Ironically, the investors then decided to invest more freely. Infact the tax rate spiked during the depression, don't you think this had alot to do with investor confidence too??

Of course it shrank. Private investors got burned by the bank runs and were really wary of putting money into the system again. You had to give them either some serious guarantees or an investing opportunity too good to pass up.
By the end of the 30's, the government was actually paying bonuses for hiring people as part of the stimulus at the time. Coupled with the high demand created by the war, it finally convinced investors that they could make a lot of money both from the enterprise and the government. In other words, the stimulus when coupled with the high demand, created an environment that was too good to pass up for investors.

That doesn't say much, FDR died in 1945, Truman cut FDR's economic control programs and thus created consumer confidence. The war didn't lead us out of a recession, the standard of living was still declining during the war, we had food rationings, how could you consider that recovery.

You also had a phony way of having low unemployment due to the draft that took alot of labor from the workforce. The War itself did not spark private investments nor did it allow them to do anything. The repeal and cutting of FDR's programs did the job, Truman knew this.

It was in response to your argument that the economy only recovered once we cut spending. It has nothing to do with spending at that point, because our economy was already in the upswing. Once you get to that point, cutting spending makes sense since the economy doesn't require any extraordinary stimulus at that point, and so you go back to the pre-recession economic state.

what upswing, the economic indicators weren't real or based on sound economic development, the war distorted figures of unemployment, and you had food rationing, how can you say that economy was good? THat's retarded.

No, you do that once you already recovered and you're in the upswing, in order to stabilize the economy. There's simply no more need for an artificial stimulus at that point. Where there people wary that by withdrawing the stimulus too early we would fall back into recession? Sure. Heck, it actually happened to Japan in the 90's. But it's merely opinion. Reality dictates that the economic recovery started in '39 and improved during the war, where the spending spiked to 120% of the GDP. It was an artificial measure that served to regain investment and get the economy back on track. Once it served it's purpose, it was done away with.

Dude, once again. The keynesians didn't believe that there was a true economic recovery, nor did anyone at that time. There was no indication at the time with the current structure of the economy and the federal govt polices for growth. That's why they ordered a second stimulus. Keynes would have done the same.

What you had here was an oncoming recession because the govt was no longer there to purchase planes and bullets. The economy had to readjust, the War was not going to sustain or even guarantee anything.

That's why the Keynesians wanted to "stimulate" the economy and for the govt to shift spending in different sectors.

If you don't understand this, than you cannot understand why keynesian policies when applied fail.

Infact, the biggest consumer of that economy was about to cease from purchasing goods, how is that good?

If anything, the war was the perfect excuse to shoot up the debt to unimaginable levels.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 03:26 AM

You don't understand what Keynes proposed to combat recession at all. He didn't propose a long term economic plan. He proposed a short, artificial stimuli to regain consumer and investor confidence in the system.

Recession is mostly a byproduct of losing trust in the system. People are wary to spend money, which makes investment dwindle, which makes the economy drag down even deeper and creates more lack of trust. Eventually you need to do something to regain that trust and go back to your normal economic life.

This is funny as hell.. Ultimately Keynes criticized FDR for not spending enough.

The keynesian stimulus is a failed system. If you think prolonging a recession to 7 years instead of 1 like the 1920 crash, then there is no hope for you.

All the depression did was distort the market even further and delayed the environment for buisinesses to gain trust, or the market to reallocate it's sources. There was a depression with in a depression in that era in 1937, so if anything Keynes fucked us over twice.

And if you consider war time rationing, fake levels of unemployment due to a draft, and lower standards of living to be a recovery.. then you are horribly mistaken. WW2 was not a true economic recovery.

Keynesian policies further distort markets.

It did that during the BUsh years, we delayed the Clinton recession by lowering taxes and raising spending, and lowering interest rates. We help create a boom in investing in a housing market that was overvalued through these policies.

That was keynesian policies at work in OUr era, how can anyone say that this was good is beyond belief.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 03:28 AM

ChumpDumper

08-13-2010, 03:55 AM

That's cuz I'm arguing about economic recovery being substantial with keynesian policies and wether it actually sparked the post war boom, and not about what is keynesian policies.That's the problem.

You don't know what they are in the first place so you can't say what they are "substantial with."

But not that you're an impartial observer or wether you matter.

What a waste of post on a waste of a poster...Cry me a river. Getting pissy won't make you less ignorant.

Go read a book.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 04:00 AM

That's the problem.

You don't know what they are in the first place so you can't say what they are "substantial with."

Cry me a river. Getting pissy won't make you less ignorant.

Cry whine, obsessed, stalk, angry sad.. using hyperbole and logical fallacies doesn't make you less ignorant.

ChumpDumper

08-13-2010, 04:01 AM

:cry

boutons_deux

08-13-2010, 05:23 AM

So the right-wingers hate Keynesian fiscal policy.

Did a single one of you complain when dubya gave away a puny $180B stimulus a couple years ago? Was that "funded"?

What do the right-wingers propose to get the economy moving again, and above all, to INCREASE tax revenues by getting the unemployed back to work?

Assume Repugnants in November get 60 seats in the Senate, and 55% of the House.

What are they going to do to get the economy and jobs moving again?

101A

08-13-2010, 09:34 AM

So the right-wingers hates Keynesian fiscal policy.

Did a single one of you complain when dubya gave away a puny $180B stimulus a couple years ago? Was that "funded"?

What do the right-wingers propose to get the economy moving again, and above all, to INCREASE tax revenues by getting the unemployed back to work?

Assume Repugnants in November get 60 seats in the Senate, and 55% of the House.

What are they going to do to get the economy and jobs moving again?

I think BOTH parties have screwed our country, and its economic future, to no end.

Entitlement programs not paid for or funded.

Weapons programs and even wars funded by borrowing.

Stimulus not funded.

Tax cuts on the credit card.

We are fat, lazy, spoiled brats - who expect and demand EVERYTHING! An active govt. with a large safety net; a state of the art, powerful military, with no hods barred, and no expense too great - and a global presence! We don't save during our lifetimes, so we demand free medical, and enough income from Social Security to allow us to live the last 20 - 30 years of that life (damn near as long as we ACTUALLY WORKED) strolling the streets at leisure, and sitting in doctor's office waiting for our VIAGRA prescription (paid for by the govt.)

On top of that, we want our goods cheap, and unemployment and wages high!

It's a pipe-dream and we've tried to live it for TOOOOO long - it is time to pay the piper, and NOT make our children's children's children's children papy for OUR lavish, unsustainable lifestyle. We have to step up, and take it on the chin.

Our legacy going forward should be one of sacrifice for the future of our nation. Tax rates MUST jump by at least 25% for EVERYONE, spending MUST decrease by 25% ACCROSS the board, until our debt is at a sustainable level (say 50% of GDP, and still trending downward).

Of course this will spiral us into depression for a good bit - and people will suffer; but it is the bed we have made, collectively.

We suck. We should have to pay.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 10:28 AM

:cry

boutons_deux

08-13-2010, 10:46 AM

1. Keynes prolonged the depression

2. Keynes inflated the market bubble of the 2000s. Can anyone take this policy seriously.

And if you're going to go back to your tripe that keynes policies are only short term, don't. Even short term policies have long term consequences, it takes a blind sheep to think otherwise.

1. You Lie

Tell us again how the way-too-small Keynesian stimulus prolonged the Banksters Great Depression, rather than lessening it?

2. You Lie.

The bubble was inflated by Friedmanesque MONETARY policy of low Fed rates to ease the dot.com bubble burst, not Keynesian FISCAL policy.

The bubble was inflated by the cash of $1T of tax cuts for the wealthy going looking for high returns, like in non-bank mortgage lenders, and playing derivatives casino.

The bubble was worsened by Repug/conservative deregulation of the corrupt, fraudulent financial industry, and no/weak regulation by the dubya Repugs (blocking the states' attempts to stop predatory lending, allowing banks to backdate/accelerate overdrafts, making derivatives illegal to regulate, etc, etc)

Nearly all of the current deficit is due to dubya's bullshit/botched wars, dubya's tax cuts (they REALLY got the economy going, right?), and the tax losses due to the unregulated, casino-loving, fraudulent, criminal Banksters' Great Depression.

now, GFY.

Still waiting for specific, concrete proposals from the right wing whiny, lying dumbfucks about how the Repugs will fix the Everest of stinking shit they piled on Magic Negro's shoulders.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 01:08 PM

1. You Lie

Tell us again how the way-too-small Keynesian stimulus prolonged the Banksters Great Depression, rather than lessening it?

2. You Lie.

The bubble was inflated by Friedmanesque MONETARY policy of low Fed rates to ease the dot.com bubble, not Keynesian FISCAL policy.

The bubble was inflated by the cash $1T of tax cuts for the wealthy going looking for high returns.

The bubble was worsened by Repug/conservative deregulation of the corrupt, fraudulent financial industry, and no/weak regulation by the dubya Repugs (blocking the states' attempts to stop predatory lending, allowing banks to backdate/accelerate overdrafts, making derivatives illegal to regulate, etc, etc)

Nearly all of the current deficit is due to dubya's bullshit/botched wars, dubya's tax cuts (that REALLY got the economy going, right?), and the tax losses due to the unregulated, casino-loving, fraudulen, criminal Banksters' Great Depression.

now, GFY.

Still waiting for specific, concrete proposals from the right wing whiny, lying dumbfucks about how the Repugs will fix the Everest of stinking shit they piled on Magic Negro's shoulders.

Tax cuts with increased spending is a keynesian, dummy.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 01:16 PM

Don't be dense, the govt didn't need to go deep into the red for recovery purposes, but because we were fighting a war, plain and simple. I don't dispute that. The commodities spike happened without the US govt doing anything about it.

The government didn't need to drop all that money if private investors were willing to put the money themselves. But they weren't.

boutons_deux

08-13-2010, 01:40 PM

"Tax cuts with increased spending is a keynesian"

Tax cuts with spending going to bullshit wars isn't productive. and if what you say is true, why did the Keynesian-hating Repugs do it?

ElNono

08-13-2010, 04:22 PM

This had nothing to do with keynes stimulus doctrine as to what im about to say, so that you don't get confused.

You are failing to see why private investment wasn't interested in investing. Private business were to afraid to invest because of FDR's rigid economic controls that were cut after his death in 1945. Ironically, the investors then decided to invest more freely. Infact the tax rate spiked during the depression, don't you think this had alot to do with investor confidence too??

We have established that the economy already recovered by 1945. As a matter of fact, manufacturing employment almost doubled from 1940 to 1943. You could tell me that private investors weren't happy in '37, because FDR was mostly trying to maximize spending power on the citizenship instead of favoring the private sector. That doesn't mean that the recovery didn't work.

That doesn't say much, FDR died in 1945, Truman cut FDR's economic control programs and thus created consumer confidence. The war didn't lead us out of a recession, the standard of living was still declining during the war, we had food rationings, how could you consider that recovery.

What Truman are you talking about? The 1946 Truman with his 21 point agenda that included: new public works programs, legislation guaranteeing "full employment," a higher minimum wage, extension of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (or FEPC, a war-time agency that monitored discrimination against African Americans in hiring practices of government agencies and defense industries), a larger Social Security System, and a national health insurance system

The same Truman that announced in August 1945 that he would maintain price controls but that unions could pursue higher wages?

Or the same Truman that suggested going back to price controls after the 1946 inflation where the food prices were soaring?
Maybe the Truman that signed off on the price control and rationing legislation that the Republican Congress passed at the time?

Who can forget Taft's words that Americans "Eat less meat, and eat less extravagantly,"...

BTW, almost every nation going into World War II rationed. Be it fuel, because tankers ships couldn't deliver due to U-Boats, rubber because Japan seized that market almost completely and food in general due to the increased cost in transportation along with not enough supply.

You probably forgot that rationing went on way past FDR and the end of the war. Meat was rationed all the way until 1954.

You also had a phony way of having low unemployment due to the draft that took alot of labor from the workforce. The War itself did not spark private investments nor did it allow them to do anything. The repeal and cutting of FDR's programs did the job, Truman knew this.

It didn't? 11 million manufacturing jobs in 1940 went to 18 million in 1943. Looks like a lot of people were ADDED to the workforce, contrary to your claim.

what upswing, the economic indicators weren't real or based on sound economic development, the war distorted figures of unemployment, and you had food rationing, how can you say that economy was good? THat's retarded.

Of course the indicators were artificial. That's the point of an artificial stimuli. However, once you removed the artificial stimuli, the economy turned to pent-up demand. People, most of which were employed now and had money in their pockets, started spending. And demand couldn't keep up with supply, thus we started experiencing the inflation that came about in the mid-40's.

We were officially out of the recession by then, with a flourishing economy.

The other part you don't seem to understand is that rationing actually implies that there's more demand than supply. Which means the opposite of being on a recession (where you have enough supply, but there's no demand). So you're really making my point for me.

Dude, once again. The keynesians didn't believe that there was a true economic recovery, nor did anyone at that time. There was no indication at the time with the current structure of the economy and the federal govt polices for growth. That's why they ordered a second stimulus. Keynes would have done the same.

What you had here was an oncoming recession because the govt was no longer there to purchase planes and bullets. The economy had to readjust, the War was not going to sustain or even guarantee anything.

That's why the Keynesians wanted to "stimulate" the economy and for the govt to shift spending in different sectors.

If you don't understand this, than you cannot understand why keynesian policies when applied fail.

Infact, the biggest consumer of that economy was about to cease from purchasing goods, how is that good?

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

What some people speculated that might happen or not is irrelevant.

The artificial stimuli was applied and it got the economy out of the recession. Just as Keynes predicted it would.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 05:30 PM

The government didn't need to drop all that money if private investors were willing to put the money themselves. But they weren't.

What? we're talking about the command economy of ww2, why would private investors purchase tanks, bullets, radars, and planes???

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 05:31 PM

We have established that the economy already recovered by 1945. As a matter of fact, manufacturing employment almost doubled from 1940 to 1943. You could tell me that private investors weren't happy in '37, because FDR was mostly trying to maximize spending power on the citizenship instead of favoring the private sector. That doesn't mean that the recovery didn't work.

What Truman are you talking about? The 1946 Truman with his 21 point agenda that included: new public works programs, legislation guaranteeing "full employment," a higher minimum wage, extension of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (or FEPC, a war-time agency that monitored discrimination against African Americans in hiring practices of government agencies and defense industries), a larger Social Security System, and a national health insurance system

The same Truman that announced in August 1945 that he would maintain price controls but that unions could pursue higher wages?

Or the same Truman that suggested going back to price controls after the 1946 inflation where the food prices were soaring?
Maybe the Truman that signed off on the price control and rationing legislation that the Republican Congress passed at the time?

Who can forget Taft's words that Americans "Eat less meat, and eat less extravagantly,"...

BTW, almost every nation going into World War II rationed. Be it fuel, because tankers ships couldn't deliver due to U-Boats, rubber because Japan seized that market almost completely and food in general due to the increased cost in transportation along with not enough supply.

You probably forgot that rationing went on way past FDR and the end of the war. Meat was rationed all the way until 1954.

It didn't? 11 million manufacturing jobs in 1940 went to 18 million in 1943. Looks like a lot of people were ADDED to the workforce, contrary to your claim.

Of course the indicators were artificial. That's the point of an artificial stimuli. However, once you removed the artificial stimuli, the economy turned to pent-up demand. People, most of which were employed now and had money in their pockets, started spending. And demand couldn't keep up with supply, thus we started experiencing the inflation that came about in the mid-40's.

We were officially out of the recession by then, with a flourishing economy.

The other part you don't seem to understand is that rationing actually implies that there's more demand than supply. Which means the opposite of being on a recession (where you have enough supply, but there's no demand). So you're really making my point for me.

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

What some people speculated that might happen or not is irrelevant.

The artificial stimuli was applied and it got the economy out of the recession. Just as Keynes predicted it would.

My error is that I attributed the cuts to Truman, Truman actually did advocate the total implementation of FRR's new deal. Congress were the one's who said no, and they did away with his initiatives and proposals.

Congress then enacted these things:

1. Limited the Corporate "excess" tax from 90% to 38 %

2. Passed the Revenue Act of 1945

3.lowered income taxes.

4. Cut FDR's price controls by 1946.

5. Cut spending for SS, federal housing, cut the full employment act.

These were the policies that spurred the boom of the post war period, not the new deal nor the artificial war boom.

I leave you with this...

Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-8251-0-5-5--.html

Mr. Folsom, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?" (Simon & Schuster, 2008). Mrs. Folsom is director of Hillsdale College's annual Free Market Forum

ElNono

08-13-2010, 05:39 PM

What? we're talking about the command economy of ww2, why would private investors purchase tanks, bullets, radars, and planes???

I didn't say purchasing, I said investing.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 05:47 PM

I didn't say purchasing, I said investing.

So you're saying that Govt invested.. Becuase they were the purchasers in that time, not the investors.

They did invest in weaponry, but the boom was sparked not by investments but by purchasing of goods for the war. Pointless statement.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 06:00 PM

Did the new deal lead us out of the depression or not???

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 06:01 PM

Did the new deal lead us out of the depression or not???
I believe it delayed the recovery myself.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 06:04 PM

So you're saying that Govt invested.. Becuase they were the purchasers in that time, not the investors.

They did invest in weaponry, but the boom was sparked not by investments but by purchasing of goods for the war. Pointless statement.

No, the government invested in stimulating the economy. As I already mentioned a couple of times, one of the stimuli programs implemented paid private investors bonuses for hiring more people. It basically allowed investors to hire with little to no risk, and basically paid training for the new employees.

That you fail to acknowledge that stimulative programs like that took place doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

If you actually paid attention to the graphs you posted, unemployment actually started to decline *before* the war started. Obviously, the war helped to accelerate the process much more. Due to the exceptional circumstances, it allowed the government to stop looking at the deficit and go on a spending spree.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 06:05 PM

Did the new deal lead us out of the depression or not???

No, obviously not. Turns out much more spending was required to get us out of the recession.

Marcus Bryant

08-13-2010, 06:07 PM

Last week i was shopping on SoCo (in AUstin, TX) with my mom before lunch She bought a small Josefina (Aguilar) thing at the Turquoise Door. At a nearby third-worldish bric-a-brac place, I saw a poster. Sort of a government propaganda thingy. It looked South Asian. It exhorted people to eat right, pay their debts, practice sexual fidelity, and shun all violence and intoxicants -- and all unnecessary purchases. (One or more of these is unapplicable to modern Americans.)

It may take awhile for our hard edged libertarian culture to reign itself in, having been raised on a steady regime of more or less orgiastic consumption.

'Liberty without responsibility isn't liberty,' or what not.

DarkReign

08-13-2010, 06:07 PM

Thats easy. Buy property at least 40 miles from a major urban center. Put in fences, wells, irrigation, house, rain collection system as a fallback, plant orchards, gardens, grazing for hogs, goats, etc. stockpile lots of guns and ammo. Have a core group of competent productive people that will retreat to the compound when the shit hits the fan and defend it to the death.

Ooops, already doing that.

Bingo. If youre smart, you should know the end of this country is near. Be prepared, I say.

Marcus Bryant

08-13-2010, 06:09 PM

Of course, nowadays "liberty" has been circumscribed to mean the right to fuck whoever you want, to pay low taxes, or to watch football and drink beer. Perhaps this country deserves to go bankrupt and endure some actual strife for once to appreciate what true liberty it had.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 06:11 PM

Two peices of legislation passed by FDR were the Agricultural Adjustment ACT and the National Recovery act.

His advisors thougth that the depression was caused by too much competition.LOL!!
So his policies were inadvertantly and sometimes purposely aimed at limiting production.

The AAA accomplished this.

1. The act immediately was set out to destroy livestock like pigs and reduce breeding sows to maintain high prices for farmers.

2. Farmers of cotton were paid to plow only a quarter of their production so that they could maintain the price of cotton high.

The NRA accomplished this:

1.Set out to standardize investments, cost and production.

2. The codes they produced rose prices and cut production.

3. Many buisinesses then had to drop out for failure to comply with codes and in essence cartelized many industrys.

But just as bad was the Wagner act which forced workers to join unions if the unions won a majority vote in a company. This led to the inflation prices of consumer goods.

The first two acts were repealed or judged as unconstitutional, and then you saw a mini recovery in '37 followed by a depression with in the depression.

FDR's New deal did nothing to alleviate the mess.

The spike in the market in 39 was not due to the new deals policies but because of the rise of commodities in the beggining of ww2.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 06:18 PM

My error is that I attributed the cuts to Truman, Truman actually did advocate the total implementation of FRR's new deal. Congress were the one's who said no, and they did away with his initiatives and proposals.

Congress then enacted these things:

1. Limited the Corporate "excess" tax from 90% to 38 %

2. Passed the Revenue Act of 1945

3.lowered income taxes.

4. Cut FDR's price controls by 1946.

5. Cut spending for SS, federal housing, cut the full employment act.

These were the policies that spurred the boom of the post war period, not the new deal nor the artificial war boom.

You keep missing the point. The reason Congress could do all that was that we were no longer in a recession. Consumer confidence was up again, unemployment near a record low, there was pent-up demand for goods, prices were going up again (to the point of fairly big inflation in '46, followed by more mild inflation in '47 and '48). We were effectively out of the recession by then. So the extraordinary measures to get to that point were not necessary anymore. So obviously, they were done away with.

I leave you with this...

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-8251-0-5-5--.html

Mr. Folsom, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?" (Simon & Schuster, 2008). Mrs. Folsom is director of Hillsdale College's annual Free Market Forum

That's correct. Truman had to wait for a Republican Congress to have price controls and rationing in place again (which is actually ironic because by that time, Truman didn't want those things implemented anymore).

CosmicCowboy

08-13-2010, 06:18 PM

Bingo. If youre smart, you should know the end of this country is near. Be prepared, I say.

Like I said in another thread, another option I'm looking at is moving to Belize. Sell, the business, commercial property, house, ranch, the whole nine yards. Bank the cash and move. The only problem is Belize currency is pegged to the dollar. Actually, thats not the only problem. I'm not sure I could convince the wife to go off the grid, especially with grandbabys in the states.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 06:19 PM

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 06:19 PM

No, the government invested in stimulating the economy. As I already mentioned a couple of times, one of the stimuli programs implemented paid private investors bonuses for hiring more people. It basically allowed investors to hire with little to no risk, and basically paid training for the new employees.

Which program was that? I want to research it.

That you fail to acknowledge that stimulative programs like that took place doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

If you actually paid attention to the graphs you posted, unemployment actually started to decline *before* the war started. Obviously, the war helped to accelerate the process much more. Due to the exceptional circumstances, it allowed the government to stop looking at the deficit and go on a spending spree.

You keep bringing this up, and i keep reminding you that the cause of the spike in economic activity had nothing to do with the new deal and all to do with commidity demand because of the outset of ww2.

It's like you're not willing to concede that and you want to parrot that.

Run that statement again and I will just cut and paste this response until you awnser it directly instead of dodging it.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 06:23 PM

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 06:26 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif

when total spending dropped, in theory the unemployment rate should have gone back to the upper teens like in the 30's but instead it remained healthy with less spending.

If you look at this graphy you will see that unemployment was spiking back up again from 1943-45, the war was coming to a close and unemployment was spiking up just like in the begining stages of the depression.. So no, Truman nor congress were thinking that they were out of the clear.

Remember this unemployment was going on before the end of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Roosevelt died before the end of ww2. iF anything, If investors truly were gaining confidence it was because FDR died. :lol

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 06:30 PM

Now you're cherry picking.

This is the reality: By 1937 all economic indicators were back to pre-recession era, except for unemployment which was the big boogeyman. By the end of 1938, after the second new deal, unemployment started to go down (again, look at your own chart). The war certainly accelerated both the spending and the recovery.

You know why there was a mini recovery.. because of the repeal of those New Deal programs LOL!!!

LnGrrrR

08-13-2010, 06:31 PM

If you look at this graphy you will see that unemployment was spiking back up again from 1943-45, the war was coming to a close and unemployment was spiking up just like in the begining stages of the depression.. So no, Truman nor congress were thinking that they were out of the clear.

Remember this unemployment was going on before the end of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Roosevelt died before the end of ww2. iF anything, If investors truly were gaining confidence it was because FDR died. :lol

Uhm... that's not much of a "spike".... if you look at the rise from 43-45, it was just raising to "normal" levels. The extremely low level of unemployment in 1941/42 was an anomaly.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 06:32 PM

Which program was that? I want to research it.

Google "cost-plus contracts". Ford made a shitload of money with it. It's still even used today.

You keep bringing this up, and i keep reminding you that the cause of the spike in economic activity had nothing to do with the new deal and all to do with commidity demand because of the outset of ww2.

Demand was only part of the equation. I do give credit to the increased demand. You simply don't want to give credit to the increased spending.

It's like you're not willing to concede that and you want to parrot that.

But I did give credit to demand. It's you that keep on parroting that it was the only reason for any economic activity.

Run that statement again and I will just cut and paste this response until you awnser it directly instead of dodging it.

You can do whatever you want. I'm not here to convince you of anything. Numbers simply contradict what you're saying, that's all.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 06:34 PM

Uhm... that's not much of a "spike".... if you look at the rise from 43-45, it was just raising to "normal" levels. The extremely low level of unemployment in 1941/42 was an anomaly.

Right. It was going back to pre-recession levels. Pretty evident if you're not looking with rose colored glasses and looking for an excuse...

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 06:36 PM

Honestly El nono, i don't think i've ever met anyone who said the Depression ended in 1937.. that's a new one.

LnGrrrR

08-13-2010, 06:39 PM

Honestly El nono, i don't think i've ever met anyone who said the Depression ended in 1937.. that's a new one.

Well, if you look at your graph, they shouldn't be saying that. They should be saying it ended around 1941, because that's when levels went back to the historical "norm".

ElNono

08-13-2010, 06:49 PM

Honestly El nono, i don't think i've ever met anyone who said the Depression ended in 1937.. that's a new one.

But it didn't. The turnaround was between '40-'43... You know, stuff like that doesn't happen overnight... I actually think it took only 3 years because of the war. Otherwise it would have taken longer.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 06:57 PM

Well, if you look at your graph, they shouldn't be saying that. They should be saying it ended around 1941, because that's when levels went back to the historical "norm".

Well.. you compare a crash in 1920 that lasted a year, and a one in 1929 that lasted more than a decade.. I don't see how you could say that spending is better than inaction.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 06:59 PM

But it didn't. The turnaround was between '40-'43... You know, stuff like that doesn't happen overnight... I actually think it took only 3 years because of the war. Otherwise it would have taken longer.

The 1920 crash only lasted a year and with no major spending and inaction of the FED reserve, the Hoover programs, and it's expansion by way of the NEW deal took 8x as long.. why is that??

LnGrrrR

08-13-2010, 07:00 PM

Well.. you compare a crash in 1920 that lasted a year, and a one in 1929 that lasted more than a decade.. I don't see how you could say that spending is better than inaction.

Perhaps; I'm not an economist. I was just pointing out that your graph didn't really show a spike, but a return to relative normalcy.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 07:34 PM

The 1920 crash only lasted a year and with no major spending and inaction of the FED reserve, the Hoover programs, and it's expansion by way of the NEW deal took 8x as long.. why is that??

Completely different crashes though. The 1920 crash was related to bad economic policy from the Fed (raising interest rates to 7%), the major increase in of labor force since the WWI ended, and the fact that fiat money was a fairly new development, and people expected a deflation (due to the gold standard, which always followed inflation with deflation).

You couldn't possibly say that there was no intervention from the Fed. As soon as the Fed went back down from 7% to 4.5% interest rates, the deflation was over.

The Great Depression was a completely different animal. The consumers lost complete trust in the system after the bank runs. Regaining trust after so many people lost so much money takes a long, long time.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 08:29 PM

It may take awhile for our hard edged libertarian culture to reign itself in, having been raised on a steady regime of more or less orgiastic consumption.
Libertarianism, as I understand it, allows for personal indulgences with personal responsibility. As I see it, true libertarians already "reign themselves" in. It's liberals, who expect the tax payers, to make up for their failures in responsibility.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 08:47 PM

Like I said in another thread, another option I'm looking at is moving to Belize.
If things don't get better that this doom I see from the demonrats, I'm looking to move myself.

Will you please start another thread, and tell us what you know about Belize. Maybe in "The Club" please.

Fuck this country if they want more and more of my tax dollars. I'll move the fuck out.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 09:05 PM

It's liberals, who expect the tax payers, to make up for their failures in responsibility.

Liberals like Paulson and Bush Jr?

SnakeBoy

08-13-2010, 09:10 PM

Fuck this country if they want more and more of my tax dollars. I'll move the fuck out.

How much did this country take from you last year?

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 09:13 PM

Liberals like Paulson and Bush Jr?
RINOS are not conservatives. They have many liberal traits.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 09:13 PM

How much did this country take from you last year?
At least $20k I'd have to look it up, not worth the effort.

SnakeBoy

08-13-2010, 09:17 PM

At least $20k I'd have to look it up, not worth the effort.

Well I guess I should have asked the question better. How much did you make and how much did they take?

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 09:26 PM

Well I guess I should have asked the question better. How much did you make and how much did they take?
I prefer not to say much there. I make a pretty reasonable amount of money compared to most. My last job, I used to make 6 digits. I'm close, but only 5 digits now.

Fucking democrats and their economy.

I have no write-offs. Just my single status exemption/standard deduction, medical, and retirement as pre-tax deductions. I'm including state taxes too.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 09:26 PM

RINOS are not conservatives. They have many liberal traits.

Unlike liberals, you have no problem making excuses for them though.

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 09:31 PM

The U.S. has one of the lowest rates of taxes in the world....GTFO.....

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 09:37 PM

Completely different crashes though. The 1920 crash was related to bad economic policy from the Fed (raising interest rates to 7%), the major increase in of labor force since the WWI ended, and the fact that fiat money was a fairly new development, and people expected a deflation (due to the gold standard, which always followed inflation with deflation).

I agree with you, entirely different crashes. THe 1920 crash was a bigger loss in monetary base. And for that whole year of that depression, the rate was at 7 percent. The reaction of the Fed was to spike the rate and contract the money.

The crash of 1920 was caused not by hiked rates like you alleged, but by the opposite.. money expansion aka dollar inflation. The fed combated it by contracting it with rates spikes and the depression was over in a year.

The opposite occured in the depression, we lowered the interest rates to 1 percent.

This doesn't help your argument at all.

You couldn't possibly say that there was no intervention from the Fed. As soon as the Fed went back down from 7% to 4.5% interest rates, the deflation was over.

The deflation was necessary to combat the money inflation that actually CAUSED the crash. Moot point. The boom of the 20's that led to the correction of 29 was the actually caused by the fed lowering the interest rates after the fact that they hiked them.

The Great Depression was a completely different animal. The consumers lost complete trust in the system after the bank runs. Regaining trust after so many people lost so much money takes a long, long time.

The worst results of the depression weren't felt right away. The worse of the bank runs came 2 yrs later and the monetary base loss was less than the 1920's depression.

Historians agree that the 1920's crash was deeper and more dangerous. But the opposite was done in that one in that we contracted the money supply and we hiked interest rates in 1920.

According to Keynesians, contracting the money supply during a depression would be disasterous, but the 1920's crash and recovery completely scoffs them and is a thorn to their side.

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 09:43 PM

At the conclusion of World War I, U.S. officials found themselves in a bleak position. The federal debt had exploded because of wartime expenditures, and annual consumer price inflation rates had jumped well above 20 percent by the end of the war.

To restore fiscal and price sanity, the authorities implemented what today strikes us as incredibly “merciless” policies. From FY 1919 to 1920, federal spending was slashed from $18.5 billion to $6.4 billion—a 65 percent reduction in one year. The budget was pushed down the next two years as well, to $3.3 billion in FY 1922.

On the monetary side, the New York Fed raised its discount rate to a record high 7 percent by June 1920. Now the reader might think that this nominal rate was actually “looser” than the 1.5 percent discount rate charged in 1931 because of the changes in inflation rates. But on the contrary, the price deflation of the 1920–1921 depression was more severe. From its peak in June 1920 the Consumer Price Index fell 15.8 percent over the next 12 months. In contrast, year-over-year price deflation never even reached 11 percent at any point during the Great Depression. Whether we look at nominal interest rates or “real” (inflation-adjusted) interest rates, the Fed was very “tight” during the 1920–1921 depression and very “loose” during the onset of the Great Depression.

Now some modern economists will point out that our story leaves out an important element. Even though the Fed slashed its discount rate to record lows during the onset of the Great Depression, the total stock of money held by the public collapsed by roughly a third from 1929 to 1933. This is why Milton Friedman blamed the Fed for not doing enough to avert the Great Depression. By flooding the banking system with newly created reserves (part of the “monetary base”), the Fed could have offset the massive cash withdrawals of the panicked public and kept the overall money stock constant.

But even this nuanced argument fails to demonstrate why the 1929–1933 downturn should have been more severe than the 1920–1921 depression. The collapse in the monetary base (directly controlled by the Fed) during 1920–1921 was the largest in U.S. history, and it dwarfed the fall during the early Hoover years. So we hit the same problem: The standard monetarist explanation for the Great Depression applies all the more so to the 1920–1921 depression.

The Results

If the Keynesians are right about the Great Depression, then the depression of 1920–1921 should have been far worse. The same holds for the monetarists; things should have been awful in the 1920s if their theory of the 1930s is correct.

To be sure, the 1920–1921 depression was painful. The unemployment rate peaked at 11.7 percent in 1921. But it had dropped to 6.7 percent by the following year, and was down to 2.4 percent by 1923. After the depression the United States proceeded to enjoy the “Roaring Twenties,” arguably the most prosperous decade in the country’s history. Some of this prosperity was illusory—itself the result of subsequent Fed inflation—but nonetheless the 1920–1921 depression “purged the rottenness out of the system” and provided a solid framework for sustainable growth.

As we know, things turned out decidedly differently in the 1930s. Despite the easy fiscal and monetary policies of the Hoover administration and the Federal Reserve—which today’s experts say are necessary to avoid the “mistakes of the Great Depression”—the unemployment rate kept going higher and higher, averaging an astounding 25 percent in 1933. And of course, after the “great contraction” the U.S. proceeded to stagnate in the Great Depression of the 1930s, which was easily the least prosperous decade in the country’s history.

The conclusion seems obvious to anyone whose mind is not firmly locked into the Keynesian or monetarist framework: The free market works. Even in the face of massive shocks requiring large structural adjustments, the best thing the government can do is cut its own budget and return more resources to the private sector. For its part, the Federal Reserve doesn’t help matters by flooding the shell-shocked credit markets with green pieces of paper. Prices can adjust to clear labor and other markets soon enough, in light of the new fundamentals, if only the politicians and central bankers would get out of the way.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/#

Ignignokt

08-13-2010, 10:06 PM

The U.S. has one of the lowest rates of taxes in the world....GTFO.....

Nice..

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 10:11 PM

The U.S. has one of the lowest rates of taxes in the world....GTFO.....
I don't believe that. However, lets assume it's true. We still have something like the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, which is the primary reason why new jobs are everywhere but here.

SnakeBoy

08-13-2010, 10:12 PM

I prefer not to say much there. I make a pretty reasonable amount of money compared to most. My last job, I used to make 6 digits. I'm close, but only 5 digits now.

Fucking democrats and their economy.

I have no write-offs. Just my single status exemption/standard deduction, medical, and retirement as pre-tax deductions. I'm including state taxes too.

Fair enough, although I seem to recall you stating your income in the past.

So what I can gather from what you've said your somewhere in the top 15-20% of wage earners, your total tax burden (including state taxes) is roughly 20% which is way too much and you leaving the country if they try to take anymore.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 10:14 PM

Fair enough, although I seem to recall you stating your income in the past.

So what I can gather from what you've said your somewhere in the top 15-20% of wage earners, your total tax burden (including state taxes) is roughly 20% which is way too much and you leaving the country if they try to take anymore.
Last I looked, I was in the fourth quintile. I did list two of my past years in excess of $100k at one point, but never gave current circumstances.

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 10:17 PM

I don't believe that. However, lets assume it's true. We still have something like the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, which is the primary reason why new jobs are everywhere but here.

Bulll..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 10:26 PM

Bulll..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png
Like I said, we have the 2nd highest corporate rates.

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 10:32 PM

yeah, like I said, bull

The Basics
Most companies paid no taxes during the boom

With corporate tax receipts at 20-year low, the GAO takes a look through the books and finds 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all.

By MSN Money staff and news services

Think about this as you sign that check to Uncle Sam next week: More than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the General Accounting Office reports.

In 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes, the GAO said in a report released Friday. Among the largest corporations -- the 1% of all corporations that owns 93% of all corporate assets -- 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes.

And it wasnt just American companies avoiding a bill. About 70% of foreign-owned companies doing business in the United States paid no federal tax in the late 1990s, the GAO said. The GAO report covered 2.1 million returns by U.S. companies and 69,000 foreign-owned companies.

The federal corporate tax rate is 35%, but tax credits and loopholes can dramatically shrink the tax bill. Companies may not report U.S. income tax because of current-year operating losses, losses carried forward from preceding tax years, tax credits and improper pricing of intercompany transactions.

MSN (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P80242.asp)

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 10:38 PM

yeah, like I said, bull

The Basics
Most companies paid no taxes during the boom

MSN (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P80242.asp)
Don't you get it...

They find ways to move money into other nations taxes that are less. Diversification of corporate assets elsewhere. Less of their corporations are here, along with less labor being paid those nice wages.

Stop and smell the truth for a moment.

SnakeBoy

08-13-2010, 10:41 PM

Last I looked, I was in the fourth quintile. I did list two of my past years in excess of $100k at one point, but never gave current circumstances.

You paid around 20K total tax burden on "close" too 100k... Which is roughly 20%. Correct?

How low percentage wise would your tax burden have to be in order for you to think it was just about right? And how low would it have to be in order for you to think you were not paying enough?

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 10:49 PM

Don't you get it...

They find ways to move money into other nations taxes that are less. Diversification of corporate assets elsewhere. Less of their corporations are here, along with less labor being paid those nice wages.

Stop and smell the truth for a moment.

No they don't...they hide foreign profits in Cayman Island bank accounts and every few years a GOP President will come along and give them amnesty from hiding profits....domestic companies have so many deductions and scrupulous business practices that there is no need to move money to foreign countries

...stop and smell the real truth for once...

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 10:53 PM

No they don't...they hide foreign profits in Cayman Island bank accounts and every few years a GOP President will come along and give them amnesty from hiding profits....domestic companies have so many deductions and scrupulous business practices that there is no need to move money to foreign countries

...stop and smell the real truth for once...

My point is that at such high tax rates, the money is not productive here.

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 10:58 PM

My point is that at such high tax rates, the money is not productive here.

Why? Does it just disappear? All money is productive as long as it doesn't just vanish...

ElNono

08-13-2010, 11:09 PM

I agree with you, entirely different crashes. THe 1920 crash was a bigger loss in monetary base. And for that whole year of that depression, the rate was at 7 percent. The reaction of the Fed was to spike the rate and contract the money.

The crash of 1920 was caused not by hiked rates like you alleged, but by the opposite.. money expansion aka dollar inflation. The fed combated it by contracting it with rates spikes and the depression was over in a year.

There was more than that. You can't discount the raise in civilian labor force after the first WW. It was the second largest increase in workforce behind the end of WWII in the history of the US.

And the Fed strategy backfired terribly. By raising the rates so much (we wouldn't see a 7% interest rate for another 50 years after that), they completely obliterated lending among banks and to consumers.

The depression ended when the Fed lowered the rates back down to 4.5%...

The opposite occured in the depression, we lowered the interest rates to 1 percent.
This doesn't help your argument at all.

Here's timeline for you:
- In December 1919 the rate was raised to 4.75%.
- In January 1920 it was raised to 6%.
- Depression started.
- In June 1920 it was raised to 7%.
- In 1921, during the July-November period, the Fed sharply reduced the rate by half a point until reaching 4.5%.
- Depression ended.

Starting in 1922, the recovery was already visible, with unemployment going under 7% by then, lowering to under 5% by 1923.

The deflation was necessary to combat the money inflation that actually CAUSED the crash. Moot point. The boom of the 20's that led to the correction of 29 was the actually caused by the fed lowering the interest rates after the fact that they hiked them.

The deflation was not necessary because since the Fed was created in 1913, they didn't back up the entire money supply with gold anymore. We were effectively under fiat money (some will say the beginning of the end), and the cycles of inflation/depression that were characteristic of the gold standard didn't apply anymore.

The worst results of the depression weren't felt right away. The worse of the bank runs came 2 yrs later and the monetary base loss was less than the 1920's depression.

Historians agree that the 1920's crash was deeper and more dangerous. But the opposite was done in that one in that we contracted the money supply and we hiked interest rates in 1920.

According to Keynesians, contracting the money supply during a depression would be disasterous, but the 1920's crash and recovery completely scoffs them and is a thorn to their side.

They were completely different crashes. One had to do with a flood of new workers and the adjustments the economy had to do post World War I, compounded by bad monetary policy that rewarded speculation instead of investment.

The other was a lot closer to what we see today: Over-indebtedness coupled with deflation, which triggers debt liquidation, which in turn contracts the money supply as bank loans are paid off, at that point pessimism sets in followed by hoarding of money.

Since the margin requirements of 1929 were only 10%, as soon as debt started to be liquidated brokers called in these loans, and they simply could not be paid back. That's where the bank runs started.

While the loss of monetary base was bigger in 1920, the actual loss of assets by the general population was much, much bigger in the Great Depression.

ElNono

08-13-2010, 11:11 PM

My point is that at such high tax rates, the money is not productive here.

But it's productive in the Cayman Islands?

LnGrrrR

08-13-2010, 11:42 PM

I don't believe that. However, lets assume it's true. We still have something like the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, which is the primary reason why new jobs are everywhere but here.

I would say the primary reason new jobs are overseas is because the dollar goes alot further in other countries.

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 11:50 PM

I would say the primary reason new jobs are overseas is because the dollar goes alot further in other countries.

WC was reaching for straws there....you can get low wages in Mexico, so why do multinationals bother to move all the way to china and Indonesia to manufacture? Less regulations to protect the environment...

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:50 AM

There was more than that. You can't discount the raise in civilian labor force after the first WW. It was the second largest increase in workforce behind the end of WWII in the history of the US.

And the Fed strategy backfired terribly. By raising the rates so much (we wouldn't see a 7% interest rate for another 50 years after that), they completely obliterated lending among banks and to consumers.

The depression ended when the Fed lowered the rates back down to 4.5%...

Here's timeline for you:
- In December 1919 the rate was raised to 4.75%.
- In January 1920 it was raised to 6%.
- Depression started.
- In June 1920 it was raised to 7%.
- In 1921, during the July-November period, the Fed sharply reduced the rate by half a point until reaching 4.5%.
- Depression ended.

Starting in 1922, the recovery was already visible, with unemployment going under 7% by then, lowering to under 5% by 1923.

The deflation was not necessary because since the Fed was created in 1913, they didn't back up the entire money supply with gold anymore. We were effectively under fiat money (some will say the beginning of the end), and the cycles of inflation/depression that were characteristic of the gold standard didn't apply anymore.

They were completely different crashes. One had to do with a flood of new workers and the adjustments the economy had to do post World War I, compounded by bad monetary policy that rewarded speculation instead of investment.

The other was a lot closer to what we see today: Over-indebtedness coupled with deflation, which triggers debt liquidation, which in turn contracts the money supply as bank loans are paid off, at that point pessimism sets in followed by hoarding of money.

Since the margin requirements of 1929 were only 10%, as soon as debt started to be liquidated brokers called in these loans, and they simply could not be paid back. That's where the bank runs started.

While the loss of monetary base was bigger in 1920, the actual loss of assets by the general population was much, much bigger in the Great Depression.

1. The raise in interest rates was due to inflation. The raise in interest rates stopped the inflation and got America quicker out of the depression of early 20's unlike Europe.

2. The economy started to rebound once the inflation stopped and prior to the interest drop.

3. THe 1920's monetary loss was WAY WORSE than the depression. You seem to conveniently want to skip that fact along with the inflationary money one.

WAY WORSE.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:50 AM

1 yr beats 8.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 02:08 AM

There was more than that. You can't discount the raise in civilian labor force after the first WW. It was the second largest increase in workforce behind the end of WWII in the history of the US.

And the Fed strategy backfired terribly. By raising the rates so much (we wouldn't see a 7% interest rate for another 50 years after that), they completely obliterated lending among banks and to consumers.

The depression ended when the Fed lowered the rates back down to 4.5%...

Thank you for bringing this point up. Now i will use it to bludgeon your Keynesian arguments.

1. Even with a larger increase in workforce than WWII, and a spike in interest rates, the unemployment rate only got as high as 11 percent.

Shit.. This was the opposite of Keynesian theory, yet the unemployment rate was lower than in the Depression of the 30's even tho Hoover and FDR lowered the interest rates to really low levels and pumped more credit and spent more money. Both guys used public works aswell.

11 percent compared to 18-25 percent.. You tell me!

One policy contracted the money supply, the other expanded it. One had a worst recession.

And according to Keynes, the 1920's would have been worse because they did the opposite of what he proposed. LOL!!!

You can either raise interest rates and pay off the debt like in the 20's to get out of a recession and have the market adjust properly..

OR you can run massive deficits, and pump fake money?

The former outperformed the latter.

Here's timeline for you:
- In December 1919 the rate was raised to 4.75%.
- In January 1920 it was raised to 6%.
- Depression started.
- In June 1920 it was raised to 7%.
- In 1921, during the July-November period, the Fed sharply reduced the rate by half a point until reaching 4.5%.
- Depression ended.

Starting in 1922, the recovery was already visible, with unemployment going under 7% by then, lowering to under 5% by 1923.

Why do you choose to include the fact that the spike in interest was due to the fact that the economy started to sink because of inflation? High interest rates didn't cause the slump of that economy, rather it was a reaction to combat the effects of it.

Why do you choose to ignore this fact or include it?

While the loss of monetary base was bigger in 1920, the actual loss of assets by the general population was much, much bigger in the Great Depression.

Oh geez.. that's easy to explain.

One lasted for more than a decade. That doesn't say anything at all.

The stock market crash was bigger in 1920 and if it was prolonged to the same time as the 30's it would have been far more devastating.

the assets during the intial stock market crash were heavier in the 20's.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 02:22 AM

Winehole23

08-14-2010, 02:24 AM

Or deflation.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 02:26 AM

Or deflation.

I'll take that brotha.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 02:28 AM

Heres what you have to know about the 1929 SM crash.....

“But, as Milton Friedman…shows in his Monetary History of the United States (written in collaboration with Anna Schwartz), the real catastrophe did not arrive until 1933, when a run on the banks precipitated a major banking crisis that ruined many businesses and families.”

the stock market crash itself didn't cause the run on the banks... Govt policies did.

Winehole23

08-14-2010, 02:45 AM

Ok, I'll bite. How?

LnGrrrR

08-14-2010, 03:11 AM

Ok, I'll bite. How?

Because it DID damn it! When will you realize the hard (conservative) rules of economics?!?

1) Tax cuts = More GDP
2) Government policies/interference = Weaker dollar
3) Democrats running goverment = scared investors, poor economy

Cmon WH, you should know that by now with all of the info posted on this board....

ElNono

08-14-2010, 12:22 PM

So I guess Keynesian theory only works during world wars according to the Keynesians on this forum, no??

The reason govts don't do drastic money pumping during times of peace is because you run the risk of having inflation.

So.. Keynesian economic recovery is only feasible under conditions of war. LOL

No, it works on recession caused by deflation.

Something you've been conveniently ignoring for a while searching for your free market opinion pieces.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 12:23 PM

Heres what you have to know about the 1929 SM crash.....

the stock market crash itself didn't cause the run on the banks... Govt policies did.

Don't just tease us with little tidbits... tell me what Milton Friedman thought the cause of the 1920 crash was...

ElNono

08-14-2010, 12:25 PM

You could as-well let us know which Free Market think thank (Adam Smith Institute?) is your information coming from... so we know where you're getting your bantering material from...

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 12:46 PM

Don't just tease us with little tidbits... tell me what Milton Friedman thought the cause of the 1920 crash was...

That's irrelevant.. that quote from freidman was a historical quote. But i don't agree with his economic viewpoint, he's a moneterist who advocates low interest rates. He's just another form of economic interventionist.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 12:48 PM

You could as-well let us know which Free Market think thank (Adam Smith Institute?) is your information coming from... so we know where you're getting your bantering material from...

I didn't get my info or arguments from them, i got it from the sources I have alreaday posted.

You can shit on sources all you want, yours was Wikipedia :lol

But it's more productive to argue the facts.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 01:02 PM

That's irrelevant.. that quote from freidman was a historical quote. But i don't agree with his economic viewpoint, he's a moneterist who advocates low interest rates. He's just another form of economic interventionist.

LOL, it's irrelevant when you're cherry picking.

It wasn't me bringing up the 1920 crash, it was you. If you think Friedman is an authority on the topic, then quote the whole thing...

BTW, Friedman was a Keynesian until he split with his own Monetarist theory.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:06 PM

LOL, it's irrelevant when you're cherry picking.

It wasn't me bringing up the 1920 crash, it was you. If you think Friedman is an authority on the topic, then quote the whole thing...

BTW, Friedman was a Keynesian until he split with his own Monetarist theory.

Dude, you're so thick headed.

He wasn't talking about the 1920 crash in that quote, he was talking about the historical events of the 1929 crash.

I used him because at best he's an authority on the historionics of economics on those times.

If you want to dispute the facts of what he said, go ahead. But it's silly to harp on me for using a hostile source to my belief for proof.

What's so wrong about having diverse sources, on one hand you're shitting on the fact that I used single supportive sources, now you're whining about me using hostile sources.

You seem to be caught up in the tic for tac instead of the facts.

I brought up the comparison between both crashes in this thread before you posted here, it's not something I pulled out of the hat. Both crashes are worthy of comparison, and your objections concerning comparing and studying two seperate crashes are warrantless. Keynesians, Obama, and his economic team looked to FDR for clues on how to deal with this current crash. Are they wasting their time??

So it's really your objections to look at damning evidence as the cause for you to act like a petulant child about it.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 01:10 PM

I didn't get my info or arguments from them, i got it from the sources I have alreaday posted.

Like the Foundation of Economic Education?

Home to freedom, prosperity, free markets and austrian economics for over 50 years.

You can shit on sources all you want, yours was Wikipedia :lol

Because Wikipedia is widely recognized as a pro-Keynesian outlet... :rolleyes

But it's more productive to argue the facts.

You have no intention to arguing the facts. You've already moved the goalposts quite a few times since we started discussing your claim that the economy only recovered once FDR left.

Obviously, you then changed your argument to being Congress in the middle of of Truman's presidency, then you brought up the 1920 crash.

Was the economy out of the recession and recovered while FDR was still in government, yes or no?

ElNono

08-14-2010, 01:12 PM

Dude, you're so thick headed.

He wasn't talking about the 1920 crash in that quote, he was talking about the historical events of the 1929 crash.

I used him because at best he's an authority on the historionics of economics on those times.

He had an opinion on what caused the 1920 crash also. Why didn't you post that when I was saying that bad economic policy was partly to blame?

He's not an authority when he backs up my claims?

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:17 PM

He had an opinion on what caused the 1920 crash also. Why didn't you post that when I was saying that bad economic policy was partly to blame?

He's not an authority when he backs up my claims?

His oppinion and the historical facts he brings up are two different things and can be judged seperately. His historical facts contradict yours, and his economic beliefs and ideas contradict mine, I say that's a balanced source, no?:rollin

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:19 PM

You have no intention to arguing the facts. You've already moved the goalposts quite a few times since we started discussing your claim that the economy only recovered once FDR left.

Obviously, you then changed your argument to being Congress in the middle of of Truman's presidency, then you brought up the 1920 crash.

Those are actually two and the same events or causations. I don't see a problem here.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:21 PM

Also, I didn't say anything about Wikipedia's bias, just that it's not exactly a strong source or anything to be proud about if you're shitting on other people's sources.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:25 PM

Was the economy out of the recession and recovered while FDR was still in government, yes or no?

No, the majority of the labor force was getting killed in the battlefields, and there was command economy in place with food rationing. Despite all economic indicators you can cite, I don't know how that's better than a recession.

Now let me ask you a MORE important question..

Did the NEW DEAL get us out of the Depression??

ElNono

08-14-2010, 01:28 PM

Is there a problem answering my posts inline? Or there's some stuff you rather not talk about? Like the Foundation of Economic Education, maybe?

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:36 PM

Ok, I'll bite. How?

GOvt regulation that crippled bank branching which prevented banks from diversifying their portfolio of deposits, also banks were prevented from issuing their own notes to insure their clients need for higher currency deposit ratios.

Also the fact that the Govt's declaration of increased bank holidays worried investors that more bank holidays would come.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 01:39 PM

His oppinion and the historical facts he brings up are two different things and can be judged seperately. His historical facts contradict yours, and his economic beliefs and ideas contradict mine, I say that's a balanced source, no?:rollin

His historical facts don't contradict me at all. And your quote about Friedman doesn't support your contention that government intervention was the cause of the runs either.

Those are actually two and the same events or causations. I don't see a problem here.

You don't? You keep on moving the timeline as you read up for info. You need to pick a lane and stick with it. Please, remind me again when you think the economy actually got out of recession?

Also, I didn't say anything about Wikipedia's bias, just that it's not exactly a strong source or anything to be proud about if you're shitting on other people's sources.

I'm not shitting on your sources, but I am questioning the bias and thus the message. Unless you dispute the same bias on Wikipedia, I don't see what's not strong about it.

No, the majority of the labor force was getting killed in the battlefields, and there was command economy in place with food rationing. Despite all economic indicators you can cite, I don't know how that's better than a recession.

The was was going to end at some point. The question is wether we were going to go back to a recession or not. When the war ended, were we on a recession or not?

Now let me ask you a MORE important question..
Did the NEW DEAL get us out of the Depression??

For the 10th time, over the top spending did. Just as Keynes predicted.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:40 PM

Is there a problem answering my posts inline? Or there's some stuff you rather not talk about? Like the Foundation of Economic Education, maybe?

I already addressed it here....

Dude, you're so thick headed.

He wasn't talking about the 1920 crash in that quote, he was talking about the historical events of the 1929 crash.

I used him because at best he's an authority on the historionics of economics on those times.

If you want to dispute the facts of what he said, go ahead. But it's silly to harp on me for using a hostile source to my belief for proof.

What's so wrong about having diverse sources, on one hand you're shitting on the fact that I used single supportive sources, now you're whining about me using hostile sources.

You seem to be caught up in the tic for tac instead of the facts.

I brought up the comparison between both crashes in this thread before you posted here, it's not something I pulled out of the hat. Both crashes are worthy of comparison, and your objections concerning comparing and studying two seperate crashes are warrantless. Keynesians, Obama, and his economic team looked to FDR for clues on how to deal with this current crash. Are they wasting their time??

So it's really your objections to look at damning evidence as the cause for you to act like a petulant child about it.

And I already told you that it's a moot point, if you want to debate the facts of the sources, go ahead.

What this proved is that you haven't been reading any of my posts.

Also, I didn't know i how to meet your demand for inline posting? This is getting rather silly.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 01:43 PM

I'm surprised we haven't heard about Irving Fisher's debt deflation yet...

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:47 PM

His historical facts don't contradict me at all. And your quote about Friedman doesn't support your contention that government intervention was the cause of the runs either.

Yeah they do.. You said that the stock market crash caused the bank runs.. but that didn't happen till 4 yrs later.

You don't? You keep on moving the timeline as you read up for info. You need to pick a lane and stick with it. Please, remind me again when you think the economy actually got out of recession?

What's so hard to understand, FDR was no longer in office, the govt cut his programs and controls with the Truman congress. Those two events are one and the same when it comes to causality.

I'm not shitting on your sources, but I am questioning the bias and thus the message. Unless you dispute the same bias on Wikipedia, I don't see what's not strong about it.

Those sources i've used have been mainly about history and data. Message be damned, we're talking about actual data, dispute that. You haven't you've chosen to whine about the source, that's a sort of red herring there.

The was was going to end at some point. The question is wether we were going to go back to a recession or not. When the war ended, were we on a recession or not?

NO, we were not out of the recession, after the war, the economy took another 2 yrs to produce.

For the 10th time, over the top spending did. Just as Keynes predicted.

So the awnser is NO, the New Deal didn't get us out of the depression, Hitler and Mussolini did.:lmao

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:49 PM

I'm surprised we haven't heard about Irving Fisher's debt deflation yet...

I don't know, why is that???.. he's on that The Great Depression wikipedia page you been fishing your info out of.

It was your duty to bring him up. :lol

ElNono

08-14-2010, 01:49 PM

I already addressed it here....

And I already told you that it's a moot point, if you want to debate the facts of the sources, go ahead.

What this proved is that you haven't been reading any of my posts.

Also, I didn't know i how to meet your demand for inline posting? This is getting rather silly.

I already questioned some of the claimed 'facts' of some of your sources as part of our discussion. That you keep on bringing up the same weak sauce simply tells me you're the one not reading.

The inline posting has to do with the fact that I have to gloss over my previous posts to see what you decided to skip over. Ultimately, for this to be an actual exchange of ideas you would have to have any, yet I haven't heard a peep about how the Free Market would have gotten us out of any of the depressions cited.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:50 PM

I didn't know going to war with Hitler and Emperor Ching Chang Chong was a proposal of the New Deal..

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 01:53 PM

I already questioned some of the claimed 'facts' of some of your sources as part of our discussion. That you keep on bringing up the same weak sauce simply tells me you're the one not reading.

The inline posting has to do with the fact that I have to gloss over my previous posts to see what you decided to skip over. Ultimately, for this to be an actual exchange of ideas you would have to have any, yet I haven't heard a peep about how the Free Market would have gotten us out of any of the depressions cited.

Whining and bitching about the sources and not the relevant facts is weak sauce tbh.

And inline posting is not a requirement here, sometimes I don't want to sanction your logical fallacies by responding to them.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 01:59 PM

Yeah they do.. You said that the stock market crash caused the bank runs.. but that didn't happen till 4 yrs later.

Now you're simply misrepresenting what I said. I said that the crash caused deflation, and the deflation caused the runs. I even listed it in chronological order. Please, just stop saying I said things I didn't.

Again, your contention that the Friedman quote you posted indicates somehow that government intervention caused the crashed is completely erroneous. And I see you completely avoided responding to that.

What's so hard to understand, FDR was no longer in office, the govt cut his programs and controls with the Truman congress. Those two events are one and the same when it comes to causality.

Was the economy already out of recession by then, yes or no?

Those sources i've used have been mainly about history and data. Message be damned, we're talking about actual data, dispute that. You haven't you've chosen to whine about the source, that's a sort of red herring there.

I have. I had to go and revisit Truman's government history to refute your claim, which I did. Then you suddenly remembered Congress! Which we revisited and still kept the same government controls and rationing.
But it's irrelevant to the main point, because we already established we were out of the recession by then.

NO, we were not out of the recession, after the war, the economy took another 2 yrs to produce.

Sure we were. Employment was back to normal, prices of goods were growing, there was pent-up demand, and there was inflation. It couldn't be more opposite from a recession. Maybe you don't know what recession is and how it's measured?

So the awnser is NO, the New Deal didn't get us out of the depression, Hitler and Mussolini did.:lmao

No, stopping to worry about a balanced budget and spending over the top got it done. Just as Keynes predicted it would.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 02:00 PM

Whining and bitching about the sources and not the relevant facts is weak sauce tbh.

And inline posting is not a requirement here, sometimes I don't want to sanction your logical fallacies by responding to them.

More blurb and no Free Market solutions... not surprised.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 02:03 PM

I don't know, why is that???.. he's on that The Great Depression wikipedia page you been fishing your info out of.

It was your duty to bring him up. :lol

How would you know he was in the Wikipedia page? :lol

You know, you can espouse alternative ideas to Keynesian economics too.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 02:03 PM

More blurb and no Free Market solutions... not surprised.

There is no such thing as free market solutions which require intervention. Free markets don't require "solutions", that's what makes a free market.. free.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 02:05 PM

There is no such thing as free market solutions which require intervention. Free markets don't require "solutions", that's what makes a free market.. free.

And how would no intervention prevent a deflationary spiral?

Oh wait, it wouldn't. That's why the Free Market is never used in a crisis, it's only used to get us there.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 02:16 PM

And how would no intervention prevent a deflationary spiral?

Oh wait, it wouldn't. That's why the Free Market is never used in a crisis, it's only used to get us there.

That's the point, it wouldn't. A deflationary spiral would be necessary to fix a distorted market caused by loose credit. Keynes maintains that you have to push more loose credit to combat the effects of loose credit, that's insane.

I'm not disputing that Keynesian stimulus works as temporary stimuli. I said that the New Deal failed to do this.

Keynesian stimulus does do what it intends most of the time. That's not my problem with it though. The problem with Keynes is that you have devalue of the dollar and higher debt, and even more distortion of the market that will cause another boom and bust. Ofcourse Keynes says that higher debt is no big deal, that doesn't make it true.

Keynes always creates more reasons to use keynes, and that's my issue. It doesn't even have to be keynes specifically.

Govt intervention always causes more govt intervention. The free market left alone corrects itself and reallocates sources quicker than any other mixed economy. Keynes just promotes the same bad sectors to exist... see GM and the failed Investment firms of 2008.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 02:19 PM

But my point was that the New Deal prolonged the depression. Your contention is that the War (keynesian tool) and not the New Deal got us out of the depression. It seems to me that we are debating multiple debates.

Somehow you still maintain that FDR controls and price wages were good, you're the only one on this board doing that.

LnGrrrR

08-14-2010, 06:15 PM

There is no such thing as free market solutions which require intervention. Free markets don't require "solutions", that's what makes a free market.. free.

What about monopolies? Don't free markets require intervention which prevents these?

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 06:42 PM

What about monopolies? Don't free markets require intervention which prevents these?

The consumer has the power to intervene. If the monopoly sees it that they want to raise prices, then consumption will decrease and he risks letting other competitors coming in.

This whole monopoly scare is ridiculous. Standard oil was about to lose its huge market share to the lightbulb. The market fixes these things so long as the Govt doesn't empower corporations by giving them Limited Liability nor imposes price controls which are anti competition.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 06:44 PM

Look at the cable monopoly. They didn't innovate, kept their prices high because they thought they had a stronghold and then now are losing to the phone companies who are offering better services and are reducing their prices.

boutons_deux

08-14-2010, 08:33 PM

"consumer has the power to intervene"

tell Microsoft windows/office consumers about how much "power" they have

you dogma and ideology is as totally detached from reality as WC's

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 08:35 PM

"consumer has the power to intervene"

tell Microsoft windows/office consumers about how much "power" they have

you dogma and ideology is as totally detached from reality as WC's

Did someone put a gun to their head and force them to buy Windows??

ElNono

08-14-2010, 09:37 PM

When China intervenes and makes labor super cheap over there, what does the Free Market do?

When India intervenes and makes services super cheap, what does the Free Market do?

What's the incentive for investing in R&D if somebody else can just take it and make it cheaper and potentially better somewhere else? What's the Free Market solution to that?

ElNono

08-14-2010, 09:38 PM

Did someone put a gun to their head and force them to buy Windows??

It came bundled in the price of their computer and they couldn't unbundle it.

LnGrrrR

08-14-2010, 09:41 PM

The consumer has the power to intervene. If the monopoly sees it that they want to raise prices, then consumption will decrease and he risks letting other competitors coming in.

This whole monopoly scare is ridiculous. Standard oil was about to lose its huge market share to the lightbulb. The market fixes these things so long as the Govt doesn't empower corporations by giving them Limited Liability nor imposes price controls which are anti competition.

What about monopolies on certain vital supplies, say, bread? How would you deal with collusion?

ElNono

08-14-2010, 09:47 PM

That's the point, it wouldn't. A deflationary spiral would be necessary to fix a distorted market caused by loose credit. Keynes maintains that you have to push more loose credit to combat the effects of loose credit, that's insane.

A deflationary spiral is not only due to loose credit. It's basically a loss in confidence and it can be due to anything, including no incentives to invest.

I'm not disputing that Keynesian stimulus works as temporary stimuli. I said that the New Deal failed to do this.

You keep trying to peg the New Deal with me, and I keep telling you that what worked was the increased spending. IE: the stimulus. I'm glad you finally recognize that it does.

Keynesian stimulus does do what it intends most of the time. That's not my problem with it though. The problem with Keynes is that you have devalue of the dollar and higher debt, and even more distortion of the market that will cause another boom and bust. Ofcourse Keynes says that higher debt is no big deal, that doesn't make it true.

Keynes doesn't say that at all. Only if you don't know what he spoused.
He said you need the stimulus, be it as spending or tax breaks, and once you were out of the recession, you could then reduce the debt and balance your budget with a working economy. People blame Keynes because politicians don't follow through, but it's really not his fault, is it?

Keynes always creates more reasons to use keynes, and that's my issue. It doesn't even have to be keynes specifically.

Govt intervention always causes more govt intervention. The free market left alone corrects itself and reallocates sources quicker than any other mixed economy. Keynes just promotes the same bad sectors to exist... see GM and the failed Investment firms of 2008.

Non government intervention is an utopia. Because Free Market is an utopia. The business with the most money will always try to corral the market, and most times succeed. At that point they will abuse their power.
Self-correcting markets are a fairy tale. No such thing ever existed and never will.

Wild Cobra

08-14-2010, 09:54 PM

Because it DID damn it! When will you realize the hard (conservative) rules of economics?!?

1) Tax cuts = More GDP
2) Government policies/interference = Weaker dollar
3) Democrats running goverment = scared investors, poor economy

Cmon WH, you should know that by now with all of the info posted on this board....
LOL...

Close to being correct. Too bad you don't believe it and just posting in jest.

Wild Cobra

08-14-2010, 09:55 PM

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 09:55 PM

Non government intervention is an utopia. Because Free Market is an utopia. The business with the most money will always try to corral the market, and most times succeed. At that point they will abuse their power.
Self-correcting markets are a fairy tale. No such thing ever existed and never will.

Complete bull, consumers have free will in a free market, you're probably thinking of an anarcho capitalist world, but that's not what i'm talking about.

The reason why you had monopolies gain control of market was because of govt reg that discouraged small buisiness. Look at NorthPac railroad. There were cartels that depended on govt sanction.

Wild Cobra

08-14-2010, 10:07 PM

Complete bull, consumers have free will in a free market, you're probably thinking of an anarcho capitalist world, but that's not what i'm talking about.

The reason why you had monopolies gain control of market was because of govt reg that discouraged small buisiness. Look at NorthPac railroad. There were cartels that depended on govt sanction.
Very true.

These new banking regulations they speak of will reduce the profits of large banks, but might kill the smaller ones.

Big business and democrats being friends... Never a good mix...

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 10:07 PM

A deflationary spiral is not only due to loose credit. It's basically a loss in confidence and it can be due to anything, including no incentives to invest. And why do consumers loose confidence.... because the market was overvalued due to loose credit. The govt actually inflated the money supply after WW1 to pay for the war, that caused an economic depression world wide, the fed raised interest rates to combat it.

You keep trying to peg the New Deal with me, and I keep telling you that what worked was the increased spending. IE: the stimulus. I'm glad you finally recognize that it does.

Becuause you at first said that the recovery started in 1939, and you attributed to the New Deal, we had a long discussion about that. You seemed to have flip flopped.

Keynes doesn't say that at all. Only if you don't know what he spoused.
He said you need the stimulus, be it as spending or tax breaks, and once you were out of the recession, you could then reduce the debt and balance your budget with a working economy. People blame Keynes because politicians don't follow through, but it's really not his fault, is it?

Yeah he did, he said deficit spending was imperative to pump money into the economy. Do you not know one of the basic principles of keynes theory??

Infact, Keynes thought deficit spending as morally neutral. But you don't know what he actually espoused.

Non government intervention is an utopia. Because Free Market is an utopia. The business with the most money will always try to corral the market, and most times succeed. At that point they will abuse their power.
Self-correcting markets are a fairy tale. No such thing ever existed and never will.

Buisiness will corall the market only if the govt sanctions them. Anti trust is immoral because it punishes good buisiness practices that didn't require force or fraud. The govt can arbitrarily send buisinessmen to jail for whatever whim they think is a violation of the anti trust laws.

Self correcting markets are not a fairy tale.

Standard Oil lost its market share to innovation of the light bulb.

Cable Tv lost it's market share to Phone providers introducing tv packages.

GM lost its market control because of it's high prices, it's size which made it inefficient.. etc.

You see the market make corrections all the time.

LnGrrrR

08-14-2010, 10:15 PM

It came bundled in the price of their computer and they couldn't unbundle it.

Cue the "Did someone force them to buy Microsoft computers?"

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 10:22 PM

Cue the "Did someone force them to buy Microsoft computers?"

You can buy linux or apple, again who forced you to buy Microsoft?

LnGrrrR

08-14-2010, 10:24 PM

You can buy linux or apple, again who forced you to buy Microsoft?

I just knew that response was coming. :lol

Maybe you missed my question, but what do you think about collusion? Also, what about monopolies on certain vital items, say, bread, medicine, etc etc?

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 10:26 PM

I just knew that response was coming. :lol

Maybe you missed my question, but what do you think about collusion? Also, what about monopolies on certain vital items, say, bread, medicine, etc etc?

Monopolies that exist because the consumer out of his free will is willing to pay for it's product and because of it's innovative and low prices is just.

About collusion, give me an example of what you consider collusion..

ElNono

08-14-2010, 10:32 PM

Maybe if we stopped taxing productivity, productivity here would be less expensive....

Maybe taxing doesn't matter... maybe China can simply exploit their population... how does the Free Market force their hand?

ElNono

08-14-2010, 10:36 PM

Complete bull, consumers have free will in a free market, you're probably thinking of an anarcho capitalist world, but that's not what i'm talking about.

The reason why you had monopolies gain control of market was because of govt reg that discouraged small buisiness. Look at NorthPac railroad. There were cartels that depended on govt sanction.

No such thing. Consumers only have free will when they have options. Once a company corrals a market, there's no longer options.

What prevents a behemoth company from purchasing all the competition or simply colluding with the competition in the Free Market? How does the consumer benefit in that case?

Free Market is an utopia. There's no such thing in this world.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 10:41 PM

Maybe taxing doesn't matter... maybe China can simply exploit their population... how does the Free Market force their hand?

China is anything but a free market.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 10:43 PM

China is anything but a free market.

Exactly. So how do you change that? Because the Free Market that you want can't compete with that.

How do you keep everybody in check? You can't obviously. That's why it's an utopia.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 10:51 PM

No such thing. Consumers only have free will when they have options. Once a company corrals a market, there's no longer options.

What prevents a behemoth company from purchasing all the competition or simply colluding with the competition in the Free Market? How does the consumer benefit in that case?

Free Market is an utopia. There's no such thing in this world.

If the company has a product that no other competitor can match in price and quality, then the consumers will continue to purchase it. If the company colludes with other competition and raises prices, the demand drops because people are no longer willing to purchase that product, Rockefeller discovered this when he colluded with railroads, in the end they all lost money because the competition lowered it's prices.

Monopolies that are coercive only exist when the govt grants them power.

Wild Cobra

08-14-2010, 10:52 PM

No such thing. Consumers only have free will when they have options. Once a company corrals a market, there's no longer options.

You have a point in the aspect that it's too expensive now to start a competitive business. The start-up taxes, fees, permits, etc. etc. hamper all but the rich from acceling. We need less regulations in those aspects.

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 10:54 PM

Exactly. So how do you change that? Because the Free Market that you want can't compete with that.

How do you keep everybody in check? You can't obviously. That's why it's an utopia.

That's utter complete bull.

If the labor force is oppressed, and a govt like china has many regulations, then they can only get so far in quality.

The reason why we lose labor oversees is because of our money inflation which debases the purchasing power of the consumer and the minimum wage laws.

Govt controls always bring about higher prices.

Why is it that knee surgery cost more than breast augmentation??

Ignignokt

08-14-2010, 10:57 PM

Very simple.

It was Standard oil's competitors that lobbied for anti trust laws against Rockefeller.

Regulation doesn't benefit the free market, it benefits the corporations who have the tools and chest to fight it leaving the defenseless near profit margin small buisinesses to vanish.

Some competitor always stands to profit from regulation.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 11:38 PM

If the company has a product that no other competitor can match in price and quality, then the consumers will continue to purchase it.

Except when there's only one supplier of said product, and it can charge whatever they want and provide whatever quality they want. And if somebody decided to compete, they get either bought out or the competition gets turned into an uneven match until it collapses.

Have you heard of the term dumping? Why do you think it exists?

If the company colludes with other competition and raises prices, the demand drops because people are no longer willing to purchase that product, Rockefeller discovered this when he colluded with railroads, in the end they all lost money because the competition lowered it's prices.

No such thing. When *all* players in the market collude you get the same market distortion you dislike about government. Since there's no competition, the consumer is basically captive of said collusion.

Monopolies that are coercive only exist when the govt grants them power.

You never answered my question. If at least temporary monopolies are not granted in the form of patents or copyrights, what incentive does a company have to invest in R&D?

ElNono

08-14-2010, 11:39 PM

You have a point in the aspect that it's too expensive now to start a competitive business. The start-up taxes, fees, permits, etc. etc. hamper all but the rich from acceling. We need less regulations in those aspects.

If your idea is good and innovative enough and you don't have the capital, you can always make a business plan and hunt for VC funding.

ElNono

08-14-2010, 11:43 PM

That's utter complete bull.

If the labor force is oppressed, and a govt like china has many regulations, then they can only get so far in quality.

Bull. By artificially keeping their currency low, they keep their wages low. It's simply cheaper to hire them than to hire anybody here.

That gives them an unmatched competitive edge with the downside being poverty. But it's obviously like that by design.

The reason why we lose labor oversees is because of our money inflation which debases the purchasing power of the consumer and the minimum wage laws.

Govt controls always bring about higher prices.

Doesn't happen in China. Why is that?

Why is it that knee surgery cost more than breast augmentation??

What does that has to do with Government control or lack of?

ElNono

08-14-2010, 11:43 PM

ElNono

08-15-2010, 12:14 AM

I also wonder what answers the Free Market has for Ponzi schemes like Madoff's. If there are no regulations forcing me to backup investments (heck, even deposits), then why should I?
And you can't tell me that an occurence of that en masse wouldn't cause deflation.

Ignignokt

08-15-2010, 01:26 AM

Except when there's only one supplier of said product, and it can charge whatever they want and provide whatever quality they want. And if somebody decided to compete, they get either bought out or the competition gets turned into an uneven match until it collapses.

Wow, you have no concept of supply and demand. If the Monopoly were to make a shitty product and raises prices, they will lose out to a competitor who innvovated and is willing to pump a cheaper product.the public will then demand a better product and the monopoly would have not done anything about innovation.

This is what is happening to the cable companies as we speak.

Have you heard of the term dumping? Why do you think it exists?

Ultimately this helps the consumer. Those firms if they are artificially dumping or slashing the price of their goods for a while will operate on loss or small profit, otherwise if they are not doing this artificially and they're running huge profit margins, then they are not dumping according to the term.

No such thing. When *all* players in the market collude you get the same market distortion you dislike about government. Since there's no competition, the consumer is basically captive of said collusion.

This did happen in history. You had the Southern Improvement Company in which Oil refineries and railroads colluded to cut production and raise prices. This SIC included the famous Standard oil.

What happened is that the refineries and railroads colluded to raise prices to make a profit and force all other competitors to join or cease. The plan backfired because the Oil producers refused to pay high rates and in turn, this placed an embargo on the SIC and anyone affiliated with it. The SIC then disbanded and never collected a rebate.

This is the same shit that happens when you raise tarrifs on an international stage. The countries always raise their own and impose embargos, tarriffs never help, infact on tarrif, the Smith Howley Tarriff act was responsible for the depression.

So, if you were to impose anti dumping laws against foreign producers, you would see the same results. You help the national industries at the expense of the consumer.

You never answered my question. If at least temporary monopolies are not granted in the form of patents or copyrights, what incentive does a company have to invest in R&D?

you never asked this question. link??