Reply With Quote
I'm pretty sure both leave you with a closed casket but few ever choses to die sooner than later.
Because this is not like the 30s. Not to mention that World War 2 now involves a world with weapons that are quite different and a world far more populated.
I'm pretty sure both leave you with a closed casket but few ever choses to die sooner than later.
Admittedly I do not know all that much about the geopolitical situation during the depression to make a comparison to the current one but I cannot help to think that the United States benefited to an amazing degree by the destruction of almost all compe ors during WW2 and being left in a position that to this day we have benefited from.
I'm not so sure we'd be so lucky a 2nd time around.
Don't get me wrong, WH. I am for gradual debt reduction and smarter fiscal policy in this country as well as much better private debt management. I put the emphasis on gradual, however.
Your solution involves a permanent public backstop for a corrupt oligarchy. Is that really more acceptable to Americans than letting the oligarchs default and leaving their investors holding the bag instead?
When you look at this, just remember that a jobless recovery is better for our debt than a job losing depression. Stimulus packages rarely cost as much as they spend because they often bring in tax revenue you'd otherwise not have.
Why is it permanent? You act as if its possible for anyone else to hold the bag though. Its nice to think that if the banks would have gone down that they would have gone down alone but you and I both know thats not the way it would work.
Who suffered in the Great Depression? The rich bankers who lost a lot or everyone?
Everyone. That's the way corrections have always worked. What makes us so special that we alone in history deserve never to pay the piper?
What makes you think we have definitively avoided another leg down?
In spite of the Keynesian fix, debt-deflation could still happen. Another hit to confidence in the US, and we're just about there.
Better we get acquainted with austerity and a lower standard of living right now, before the market enforces it on us against our will, with a virulence that will only be all the worse for the debt/asset bubbles we have created in the meantime.
Japan's economy has been stagnant for 20 years, with no near term prospects of robust growth. That doesn't sound so bad to you?
Problem is, it cannot be proven either way. At least not with being able to see an alternate timeline with that as the only difference.
I stand by the idea that we would be better off without the stimulus.
I really do wish you could get a chance sometime to really try out your ideas in RL, really I do.
Then we can get a better idea once and for all if they really are as bad as I think they would be.
For now, you get to keep the comfort of self-delusion though.
As you said, we can't really say for certain as it is.
The infamous "double dip". Still a fair possibility.
Gawd, this wouldn't be quite so drastic w/o the Bush debt.
It would have been a uva lot easer to throw a couple of trillion at had we not run up the deficit/debt quite so much over the Bush years.
By your logic I can't prove that my bank accounts would have had less money in them had I not made a deposit. Just can't be proven.
Of course it can be proven. If you have X number of jobs added because of stimulus then Y - X is not > Y. I fail to see how the GDP would have been any higher without the government spending but if you can explain that to me then I'd love to see it.
Wow...
What a crock of piece of logic.
Doesn't GDP include government spending? That makes the comparison invalid as a test for saying the recovery is better or not.
The downside of the bailouts and government spending is the added debt. I simply do not believe the very minor economic help the bailout did, outweighs the damage of the borrowing.
I might have a different opinion of the spending went to infrastructure. It didn't. It went to bail out rich executive and rich stock holders. A trickle-down bailout...
How much would a complete border fence of cost, employ how many people, and for how long?
This.The infamous "double dip". Still a fair possibility.
Gawd, this wouldn't be quite so drastic w/o the Bush debt.
It would have been a uva lot easer to throw a couple of trillion at had we not run up the deficit/debt quite so much over the Bush years.
Recessions are the time for deficit spending. Not expansions.
How does more debt have a negative impact on us now? I could see your line of thinking decades from now, but NOW? No.
I don't know why I bother responding to you. Your about as bad as Jack.
Letting insolvent megabanks and losers like AIG default, for starters.
Which is exactly why people in the know scoff the out of so-called Keynesian that have been in power in America for the last chunk of decades.
They brainwash people into thinking we need to flood the market with money in crises like this. Because "they know how ecnonomic cycles work." But not one decision making Keynesian has ever fully lived to see full Keynesian economics applied to a full cycle of an economy.
Keynes said you have to tap the breaks and stop your printing presses and shore yourself up when times are booming.
W ing made it a point to prove that he's such a great president he ravaged us before we had even met the brick wall of late 2008. In fact, all the post WW2 booms did not see us tap the breaks when times were going strong. It further exacerbates the boom and the bust.
Leaving us even more ed for this. Had we not racked up those prior deficeits and started bull wars without end, I'd be alot more warm to this further flagrant spending.
and that ladies and gentlemen is exactly the type of thinking that got us into the situation we are in today.
You can't sell out your future indefinitely. Eventually it catches up with you.
You weren't saying that when Bush was running up trillion dollar deficits during a economic expansion...you weren't saying the the new jobs numbers don't reflect private industry jobs when Bush was using deficit spending to keep his unregulated, mis-managed, drown-the-govt.-in-debt economy from going into recession in 2006...
the Bush tax cuts were a failure...they created very few private industry jobs and led to a govt subsidy for the rich and a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, something that should be corrected by ending the Bush tax cuts permanently...
Failure or success is irrelevant....the Bush tax cuts were unnecessary.
That's all you really need to say about them.
The Bush Rebate was an epic fail only because part of the money went to sections of society that would not use it the way it was idealistically intended for. Also it did not go far enough.
If Obama wants a second term, give the tax paying american a REAL bailout, and stop bailing out the banks and the unions and the insurance companies that insure them. Stop bailing out your supporters and making sure they are comfty for the next couple of years. If you're going to spend some money, spend it bailing out the actual people.
Half of it is not his fault but this guy is heading towards the most Epic Fail president of all time.
Thus far, Bush's people stimulus still blows the out of the water anything that Obama has done for the common man.
He lies to your face with his stupid stuttering cadance, tells you he's giving you money, never tells you it's just part of your inevitable refund. Ludicrous.
If Obama were to give every tax-paying american a full refund of one years worth of taxes, the total cost would be far less than his bull cronism union and banker bailouts he's been dishing out.
and it would accomplish far more than the current bailouts as far as jolting the economy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
