How about not replacing the last collapsed house of cards with another?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Printable View
How about not replacing the last collapsed house of cards with another?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
The Republicans didn't have the balls to cut social spending, and actually spearheaded the bailouts. What makes you think a democrat government will undo all that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So you want the USA to be like the Empire of Japan was? How else can you make it work?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I can see it now... Emperor Obama... Has kinda a nice ring, huh?
Neither side will give in to that, though sensible. Much like a real compromise on the social insurance programs which institutes means testing and provides assistance to those who need it, as opposed to everyone, will never fly politically.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
Spearheaded the bailout? Am I remembering that wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Correct me if I'm wrong. The October bailout almost didn't happen because the democrats had enough votes, but they wanted to get some republicans to vote with them!
Am I right or wrong?
Eh, that was a bipartisan effort, at least in name. But really an unipartisan effort of the DC party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Remind me again whose Treasury secretary ran to the Congress screaming for a $700 billion blank check.
JapanQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
The Great Depression did not strongly affect Japan. The Japanese economy shrank by 8% during 1929–31. However, Japan's Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo was the first to implement what have come to be identified as Keynesian economic policies: first, by large fiscal stimulus involving deficit spending; and second, by devaluing the currency. Takahashi used the Bank of Japan to sterilize the deficit spending and minimize resulting inflationary pressures. Econometric studies have identified the fiscal stimulus as especially effective.[48]
The devaluation of the currency had an immediate effect. Japanese textiles began to displace British textiles in export markets. The deficit spending, however proved to be most profound. The deficit spending went into the purchase of munitions for the armed forces. By 1933, Japan was already out of the depression. By 1934 Takahashi realized that the economy was in danger of overheating, and to avoid inflation, moved to reduce the deficit spending that went towards armaments and munitions. This resulted in a strong and swift negative reaction from nationalists, especially those in the Army, culminating in his assassination in the course of the February 26 Incident. This had a chilling effect on all civilian bureaucrats in the Japanese government. From 1934, the military's dominance of the government continued to grow. Instead of reducing deficit spending, the government introduced price controls and rationing schemes that reduced, but did not eliminate inflation, which would remain a problem until the end of World War II.
The deficit spending had a transformative effect on Japan. Japan's industrial production doubled during the 1930s. Further, in 1929 the list of the largest firms in Japan was dominated by light industries, especially textile companies (many of Japan's automakers, like Toyota, have their roots in the textile industry). By 1940 light industry had been displaced by heavy industry as the largest firms inside the Japanese economy.
LINK
They were never applied completely in the US. Roosevelt tried to do it while keeping the budget balanced, and he failed miserably. Hence, the attempt to apply these rules while being fiscally conservative has already been proven to FAIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
There's one more historical tidbit we can learn from:
The crisis had many political consequences, among which was the abandonment of classic economic liberal approaches, which Roosevelt replaced in the United States with Keynesian policies. These policies magnified the role of the federal government in the national economy. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, and Roosevelt's critics charged that he was turning America into a socialist state.
Sounds familiar?
Yep, he was a lame piece of shit. A very poor appointment. President Bush should have never listened to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Also... the conflict of interest...
ElNono, borrowing and deficit spending is fine when used properly. The problem is, we always have deficit spending. When there is no control to pay it back in peacetime and a growing economy, there is only certain doom.
Remember the 70s?
As for the Great Depression, that eventually ended thanks to WWII and the federal government spending more than the nation's GDP at times.
Of course, I guess we should forget about the recent Japanese experience and the implications for increasing debt financed government expenditure after the collapse of an asset bubble. Not to mention, easing monetary policy to go along with that.
Excuse me? You were the first in line bitching at Bush and all the Republican cronies for even proposing the bailout. Or are you going to deny that the TARP program was invented by a republican and implemented by a Republican administration?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Are you telling me the democrats you abhor were about to save the day from a Republican bailout?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yet, Bush did and a rather large contingent of congressional Republicans went along with it (a majority, if I am not mistaken). There's no way to claim that these bailouts are somehow merely a Democratic effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
We had a balanced budget merely 8 years ago. Even a projected surplus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Sounds like an argument that keynesianism worked -- military keynesianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Yes, and as the democrats created the legislation, and more facts came out, it lost republican support.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
This was a serious mistake by president Bush. I never said otherwise. However, the democrats really twisted it when they got a hold of it. Even in it's untwisted form, I was firmly against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
There was that threat. I recall them stalling the final vote and making changes to get the republicans go along with them that didn't at first.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I don't remember the numbers. Have them handy by chance? I think it was about 1/3rd of the republicans, wasn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Then why was there a deficit?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Perhaps. If we are prepared to move to a command economy with the government spending $15 trillion+ a year (forget about this piker of a $3.5 trillion annual federal budget). Of course, some argue that the depression really didn't end until the late 40s as the federal government started to ramp down public expenditure and the federal government finally ended its almost two decade long massive intervention in the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Excuse me? The bill was introduced by a Democrat, but it had 274 cosponsors, including many Republicans. Not to mention this was entirely a Bush creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I know you were. I think pretty much everyone was. You don't really need to be a republican or democrat to know that was some bullshit legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
They didn't want to take sole responsibility for passing such a measure. Understandable considering the presidential election was looming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Here's the senate count: LINKQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Way more than 1/3...
House GOP: 91 Yeas, 108 NaysQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Senate GOP: 33 Yeas, 15 Nays
Executive GOP: 1 Yea
While we're on the subject of Japan, take a look at how Keynesian policies DIDN'T work there in the 1990's, and what the resultant effect was on their national debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
What deficit? LINKQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The numbers seem to back you up. Who's your source for this. MB?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Deficit spending (as a percentage of GDP) didn't pick up again until the mid 1970's, spiked under Reagan and GHWB, and again under GWB.
My memory, not that I was there though. Will find the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I was reminded of Nixon's "we're all Keynesians now" quote.Quote:
Deficit spending (as a percentage of GDP) didn't pick up again until the mid 1970's, spiked under Reagan and GHWB, and again under GWB.
OK, play that stupid game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Did they follow the budget...
If they did, why was the a larger debt each year afterward?
I can make a household budget that shows I save $2,000 a month. Doesn't mean shit if I spend that money anyway.
I budgeted to save the $2,000, but didn't follow through.
Bottom line and what's important. can you show me those years that the debt was reduced?
Was there a larger or smaller debt at the end of those budgeted.
I don't know about you, but I look at the reconciled numbers. Not the bullshit they lay out for lemmings.
Ok, let's play that stupid game. Let's see your numbers, WC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra