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

[ChumpDumper]

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

He continues to impress.

[ElNono]

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

Not spending it...

[SnakeBoy]

Not spending it...

Greatest Generation...real patriots!

[Ignignokt]

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]

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 e happened without the US govt doing anything about it.

[Winehole23]

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]

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 ed 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 re ed.

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 ed 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]

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 .. 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 ed 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]

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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]

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]

[boutons_deux]

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]

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.

En lement 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]

[boutons_deux]

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 bull /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 dumb s about how the Repugs will fix the Everest of stinking they piled on Magic Negro's shoulders.

[Ignignokt]

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 bull /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 dumb s about how the Repugs will fix the Everest of stinking they piled on Magic Negro's shoulders.

Tax cuts with increased spending is a keynesian, dummy.

[ElNono]

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 e 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]

"Tax cuts with increased spending is a keynesian"

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

[ElNono]

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 ed 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 re ed.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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