Did FDR End the Depression?

[EVAY]

1. Don't overlook the effect of neomercantilist policies implemented in the 1950s and a shift to an export based economy on finishing off the rapid Japanese economic improvement

2. I am a little offended by the term slave wages. I think that is the first time I have ever heard poverty and suffering cast as compe ive advantage. I cannot speak to other countries, but our economy is not based on "slave wages." You are overlooking the impact of free trade policies that have decimated this country. Prior to Martial Law in the 1970s-1980s our economy was second to Japan in per capita metrics. With the advent of free trade policies in the 80s and 90s our manufacturing and agricultural industries have subsequently collapsed.

Of course the first statement off the plane by the new US ambassador was praising our "free" relationship. A not so subtle dig, that I do not take kindly too. As I tried to explain the complexities of these situations are not just tax policy or trade policy related.

But I would please ask you to not refer to the impoverished as slaves. They already suffer enough indignities as it is and do not need to be spit on by those luckier than them in life.

As someone who has dedicated his life to education and economic advocacies to help the impoverished I do not take appreciate it as well.

And thank you for reminding me why I do not venture in the Politics Forum that much.

I assure you that I, at least, in no way intend to refer to impoverished persons as slaves. In fact, LIT, the reason that the term 'slave wages' was put in quotes was precisely to make a distinction between people and the wages that they make, and moreover, the point was very clearly made that we were talking about a comparison to wages in the U.S., which are protected by unions. You may disagree with my position that labor rates in the U.S. put the U.S. in an unfavorable trade position relative to some of our trading partners, but that is quite different than accusing me of attributing 'slave' status to anyone in any country anywhere.


I am trying very hard myself not to get a bit bent by what some others might see as an almost intentional level of professional victimization here.

Perhaps easing up on yourself and others might enable less heartburn on your part in this forum.

Gee, BTW, should I also apologize for the fact that you took umbrage at the the percieved slight from the new U.S. ambassador's comments?

Anything else while I'm at it? I have pretty broad shoulders, I'm told.

How you can interpet "what in America would be called 'slave wages' " into a statement that people from another country are slaves is almost too precious.

[ploto]

There are those economists who contend that had FDR been willing to employ greater and sooner deficit spending, then the country would have come out of the Depression more quickly.

[EVAY]

There are those economists who contend that had FDR been willing to employ greater and sooner deficit spending, then the country would have come out of the Depression more quickly.

There are also those economists (like Krugman) who insist that it was FDR giving in to the deficit-reduction insistence in 1937 that allowed a tax increase that raised taxes and is generally assumed to be the reason that the economy slipped again before WWII start.

I mean, really, the people in Germany gave Hitler credit for stopping the Depression in Germany in the 30's, when it was all due to war-time preparation and spending. It was WWII spending and industrialization that got most all of us out of the Depression.


And by the end of the war, deficit spending was more than 100% of GDP in the U.S.

Back to the OP - just because it appears in the WSJ doesn't make it so.

[Höfner]

Nuking Japan ended the depression. Or was that the war?

[L.I.T]

I assure you that I, at least, in no way intend to refer to impoverished persons as slaves. In fact, LIT, the reason that the term 'slave wages' was put in quotes was precisely to make a distinction between people and the wages that they make, and moreover, the point was very clearly made that we were talking about a comparison to wages in the U.S., which are protected by unions.

You may disagree with my position that labor rates in the U.S. put the U.S. in an unfavorable trade position relative to some of our trading partners, but that is quite different than accusing me of attributing 'slave' status to anyone in any country anywhere.

Actually, the line you used was: "Asian economies are based on what in America would be termed "slave wages"."

The way I interpreted that was saying Asian economies purposefully maintain an extremely low wage structure vis-a-vis the US to create a compe ive advantage. Which is untrue.

Within a US labor context the wage structure would appear to almost criminally, or exploitively, low. Within our context, they are. But, the economic and regional trade realities conspire to keep basic wages well-below international poverty lines. It is not purposeful, which is why I was thrown off by the term "slave". It is just part of the realities of a developing nation.

Surprisingly, within our economy many of those below the poverty line are successful micro-entrepreneurs. They have to venture into micro-enterprise because manufacturing/industrial wages are so low; precisely because of inefficiencies brought on by regional and global free-trade policies.

With regards to the US wage structure, that is at least partially or wholly made up by the US's world-leading productivity, high-levels of education, technology and technological expertise. Notice that Asian car manufacturers have been opening factories in the US: reversing that trend. Efficiencies in delivery as well are areas to explore. The US remains the premier consumer market; for certain Asian companies it only makes sense to build factories that allow quicker and cheaper delivery of vehicles. For Hyundai, it has proved cheaper than manufacturing in Korea and shipping final product to the US. The issue is creating an environment attractive to US companies to bring back manufacturing.

We also have issues with unions; however ours are much more radical in nature.

I am trying very hard myself not to get a bit bent by what some others might see as an almost intentional level of professional victimization here.

I don't understand. Certain nuances in the English language escape me. Who is being victimized?

Perhaps easing up on yourself and others might enable less heartburn on your part in this forum.

Gee, BTW, should I also apologize for the fact that you took umbrage at the the percieved slight from the new U.S. ambassador's comments?

1. I was referring more to myself with regards to why I don't comment to much in the Political Forum: I've noticed that conversations/threads have a way of being quickly derailed. As just occurred with my comment. Apologies if that was not clear.

2. With regards to the new Ambassador, that line probably was a bit confusing. The prior US representative had opened a dialogue concerning dismantling certain domestically (Philippine side) trade policies to allow us an easier hand at improving the industrial and agriculture sectors. However, within the first lines of his welcome remarks the new Ambassador has already indicated that the US will be focused on maintaining those trade policies. So, yes, within that context I was piqued with the US stance (as the US is our largest trading partner and closest international ally).

Anything else while I'm at it? I have pretty broad shoulders, I'm told.

How you can interpet "what in America would be called 'slave wages' " into a statement that people from another country are slaves is almost too precious.

Never been called precious before. Thanks.

By the way, I did give an explanation (my work) so you could understand why I might react to the term "slave".

[EVAY]

Actually, the line you used was: "Asian economies are based on what in America would be termed "slave wages"."

The way I interpreted that was saying Asian economies purposefully maintain an extremely low wage structure vis-a-vis the US to create a compe ive advantage. Which is untrue.

Within a US labor context the wage structure would appear to almost criminally, or exploitively, low. Within our context, they are. But, the economic and regional trade realities conspire to keep basic wages well-below international poverty lines. It is not purposeful, which is why I was thrown off by the term "slave". It is just part of the realities of a developing nation.

Surprisingly, within our economy many of those below the poverty line are successful micro-entrepreneurs. They have to venture into micro-enterprise because manufacturing/industrial wages are so low; precisely because of inefficiencies brought on by regional and global free-trade policies.

With regards to the US wage structure, that is at least partially or wholly made up by the US's world-leading productivity, high-levels of education, technology and technological expertise. Notice that Asian car manufacturers have been opening factories in the US: reversing that trend. Efficiencies in delivery as well are areas to explore. The US remains the premier consumer market; for certain Asian companies it only makes sense to build factories that allow quicker and cheaper delivery of vehicles. For Hyundai, it has proved cheaper than manufacturing in Korea and shipping final product to the US. The issue is creating an environment attractive to US companies to bring back manufacturing.

We also have issues with unions; however ours are much more radical in nature.



I don't understand. Certain nuances in the English language escape me. Who is being victimized?



1. I was referring more to myself with regards to why I don't comment to much in the Political Forum: I've noticed that conversations/threads have a way of being quickly derailed. As just occurred with my comment. Apologies if that was not clear.

2. With regards to the new Ambassador, that line probably was a bit confusing. The prior US representative had opened a dialogue concerning dismantling certain domestically (Philippine side) trade policies to allow us an easier hand at improving the industrial and agriculture sectors. However, within the first lines of his welcome remarks the new Ambassador has already indicated that the US will be focused on maintaining those trade policies. So, yes, within that context I was piqued with the US stance (as the US is our largest trading partner and closest international ally).



Never been called precious before. Thanks.

By the way, I did give an explanation (my work) so you could understand why I might react to the term "slave".

The critical part of your answer was that you 'assumed' what was intended.
You assumed incorrectly, and then went off on a tear about all the slights you perceive to have occurred.

You, my dear, are the one assuming the role of victimization by being so easily offended that someone who refers to 'slave labor' wages (and does so specifically in reference to the U.S. wage structure) is calling the people who toil in that environment to be slaves. Do you imagine that someone who has always lived in America has never committed themselves to eradicating ignorance or generally trying to 'uplift' the lives of others? Or that your unique experience leaves everyone else less committed to the welfare of others?

Slave wages can and are paid to people who are not slaves. That has been true in many instances, beyond the Phillippines.

By the way, being 'precious', is a term often used by people in England to refer to someone who too easily sees malintent where none is given. As you did. I lived there for a while and picked it up. It seemed apt.

Slaves and slave wages are very different realities in America.

[EVAY]

For example, graduate students in the U. S. are often paid 'slave wages'. I was one for a lot of years, and certainly never considered myself a slave. I did, however, consider many of my major professors to be 'slave-drivers.'

[L.I.T]

The critical part of your answer was that you 'assumed' what was intended.
You assumed incorrectly, and then went off on a tear about all the slights you perceive to have occurred.

You, my dear, are the one assuming the role of victimization by being so easily offended that someone who refers to 'slave labor' wages (and does so specifically in reference to the U.S. wage structure) is calling the people who toil in that environment to be slaves. Do you imagine that someone who has always lived in America has never committed themselves to eradicating ignorance or generally trying to 'uplift' the lives of others? Or that your unique experience leaves everyone else less committed to the welfare of others?

Slave wages can and are paid to people who are not slaves. That has been true in many instances, beyond the Phillippines.

By the way, being 'precious', is a term often used by people in England to refer to someone who too easily sees malintent where none is given. As you did. I lived there for a while and picked it up. It seemed apt.

Slaves and slave wages are very different realities in America.

I believe I struck a chord, my precious dear.

And just to clarify, no I do not think that vis-a-vis all Americans. Curious, how you glossed over the explanation and went straight to the emotionality.

I explained that the line conveyed that Asian countries base their economies on slave wages to maintain compe ive advantage. We do not. Your explanation makes sense. However, the initial line did not.

Sounds like a classic case of miscommunication.

[Winehole23]

Start over, LIT. EVAY isn't your enemy here. You guys can get past this. Terminology is a . Maybe this fight isn't very important. If you and EVAY can't reason together, I doubt you have much business here.

Just my opinion, right?

[Winehole23]

Look at my post count. If you and EVAY can't get along, i might give up entirely.

[L.I.T]

No worries Winehole23.

Looking over the initial comments I think it was a classic case of miscommunication.

My apologies to EVAY for imparting a different meaning that what was intended.

[Winehole23]

Online conversation can be tricky. It could happen to anyone. It has happened to me many times.