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

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?

You spend when you're in a recession. It's seems counterintuitive but it's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. History says it's the right move.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

You spend when you're in a recession. It's seems counterintuitive but it's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. History says it's the right move.

---

rofl rofl

okay Mr Recession, show me where this happened and it worked.

You Kenyesians are like cockroaches.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Yeah, I don't see why the Dems have to pull any 'gambits' when they saved the economy from going over the cliff...the right will use the 'tax and spend' liberal canard all the while supporting the extension of the unfunded Bush tax cuts for the rich...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

rofl rofl

okay Mr Recession, show me where this happened and it worked.

You Kenyesians are like cockroaches.

---

lol, take a fucking history lesson, dumbshit. U.S. History.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

lol, take a fucking history lesson, dumbshit. U.S. History.

---

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

Dems should promise to extend the Bush tax cuts, and after the election is over make a 180 degree turnaround and let them expire + add a 10% VAT on top of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Dems should promise to extend the Bush tax cuts, and after the election is over make a 180 degree turnaround and let them expire + add a 10% VAT on top of that.

---

The Dems already support extending the tax cuts for those making $250k or less....this will be talked about as a election-year political ploy by the right..so nothing will likely get done, unless its done quick....

Why hasn't Obama fixed 8 years of economic destruction yet? :cry

LMFAO 'double dip' recession. :lmao

Straight from the GOP talking-point memos. These fucking tools are the real cockroaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

Why hasn't Obama fixed 8 years of economic destruction yet? :cry

---

:lol

What would McCain have done? Bomb, bomb, bomb,....bomb bomb Iran....the GOP is like a broke, drunken mother-in-law...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

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

---

http://www.truth-out.org/files/image...morrow8-11.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

http://www.truth-out.org/files/image...morrow8-11.png

---

he gets a b for effort and f for execution

What are anti-Keynesian Repugs' plans to get the bottom 95% going again?

They don't have any. Like the top 5%, they've got theirs, they don't give a shit about America.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

and Repugs and conservatives have been working and conspiring like hell for 35 years to divide America, and America has and is fallen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

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/upl...money-drop.jpg

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

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

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.

boutons_deux - You are a very angry woman...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

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.

---

Nah, we'll just keep making cheaper TVs and video games.

CavsSuperVagina, GFY.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavsSuperFan

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!

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/20...ome/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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!

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.

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...

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.

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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

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

---

When was that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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

---

Quote:

---

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/a...al-action.html

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

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/wp-co...-1902-2014.png

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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..

Quote:

---

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/Reconst...ce_Corporation

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.

lol at the graph editorial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

---

Minimum wage is another form of Wage control.. infact, the real reason why we lost manufacturing jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

"Lasting depressions are ALWAYS caused by increased government involvement"

:lmao

Can they let some more messicans in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

"Lasting depressions are ALWAYS caused by increased government involvement"

:lmao

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

I don't intend to convince you.

---

Mission accomplished, then :toast.

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

The audaciousness is hysterical.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Mission accomplished, then :toast.

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

: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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._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'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

When was that?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

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?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

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.

So your for obstructionism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

So your for obstructionism?

---

Was that question for me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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]