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

[Ignignokt]

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]

"Lasting depressions are ALWAYS caused by increased government involvement"

[4>0rings]

Can they let some more messicans in?

[ChumpDumper]

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]

"Lasting depressions are ALWAYS caused by increased government involvement"

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

[Ignignokt]

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]

I don't intend to convince you.

Mission accomplished, then .

[CosmicCowboy]

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

[DMX7]

The audaciousness is hysterical.

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

[Ignignokt]

Mission accomplished, then .

Thank you.

[Ignignokt]

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]

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]

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 ed up recovery.

[Ignignokt]

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??

[spursncowboys]

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]

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]

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]

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 gra ude 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]

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.

[ElNono]

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]

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]

Is this sentence your evidence only??

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

[Ignignokt]

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]

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

[ElNono]

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.