Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is not true. AIDS was not "ignored" by the Reagan administration.
According to Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $8 million in fiscal year 1982. By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $2.322 billion for HIV/AIDS. Overall, between fiscal 1982 and 1989, the Reagan administration spend $5.727 billion on HIV/AIDS.
The average annual increase in HIV/AIDS funding over this period was 128.92%.
the depression did not end until the war was over, period! but i'm wasting my time here. the myth of fdr is so heavily ingrained into the nation's minds that it's almost impossible to counter. in the same way that neocons simply won't admit any evidence into the argument over the war on drugs or our involvement overseas, leberals will not examine any contradictory evidence about fdr.
Uh what alternate universe timeline do you live in the latest arguable period for the end of the great depression was 1941.
it is incredible that you bleat the nonsense without examining if it passes the common sense test. your house is paid for. it cost you $100000. it's value today is $80000. solution: i must knock my house down because there isn't enough money around for people to buy it!
those farmers could've still received something for their produce. second, your side seems unwilling to examine why those farmers overproduced. they never look into the trade war which arose because of the smoot hawley tariffs (similar to the tariffs that idiot donald trump wants to impose).
on the subject of deflation, it's only a problem if it's made into a problem or if there's excessive debt. both cases were true back then. in a free market, the govt doesn't set the means of exchange. while gold might make sense, it doesn't limit exchange to gold, it allows for competing currencies to emerge.
Farmers could not have received something for their produce. With your housing example it would be like if your house became so worthless that the proceeds of the sale wouldn't cover closing costs. It cost more to harvest and transport food to markets then it was worth. Thus why farmers were letting their fields rot, it is not as though they were stupid.
The gold standard was the problem this is what most fixed commodity people don't understand. Money supply with a commodity like gold is directly tied to to how much gold can be mined. Therefore if the economy grows faster then gold production there will be deflation because there are more goods relative to the amount of gold. The only thing that can stay this is credit. Thus economic growth with a gold standard will lead to crippling periods of deflation if credit dries up. It is simple relative scarcity of money.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 03-11-2011 at 04:13 PM..
Uh what alternate universe timeline do you live in the latest arguable period for the end of the great depression was 1941.
ah, let me guess, ww2 ended the great depression? even historians on the left, where fdr is deified, are now conceding that the asinine assumption that the war ended the depression, is totally bogus. in addition to that, many (AGAIN ON THE LEFT!!!!) who have re-examined the new deal have conceded that it most definitely did not end the depression.
obviously you will argue that you have read dissenting views on the fdr, but the simple reality is that you've had years of brainwashing in one direction and apart from the odd argument on an internet forum, you haven't looked into any of the overwhelming evidence mounting against fdr.
i on the otherhand was at least willing to examine both points of view. i was at least willing to open my mind and consider that the thorough brainwashing i received at school and college, might be flawed.
Uh what alternate universe timeline do you live in the latest arguable period for the end of the great depression was 1941.
Form 1941-1945 people in the United States were unable to get fuel, clothing, food and various other goods like they needed. It was all rationed.
Plus, we took something like a million men between the ages of 18-35 and ripped them out of the work force and sent them overseas to kill or be killed. And that is what the left calls economic revovery.
There is an economic lesson from this time frame people should take note of: low unemployment does not mean we will a good economy.
The depression didn't end until 1946. After Truman and the Supreme Court had time to get rid of many of FDRs programs and policies.
Farmers could not have received something for their produce. With your housing example it would be like if your house became so worthless that the proceeds of the sale wouldn't cover closing costs. It cost more to harvest and transport food to markets then it was worth. Thus why farmers were letting their fields rot, it is not as though they were stupid.
The gold standard was the problem this is what most fixed commodity people don't understand. Money supply with a commodity like gold is directly tied to to how much gold can be mined. Therefore if the economy grows faster then gold production there will be deflation because there are more goods relative to the amount of gold. The only thing that can stay this is credit. Thus economic growth with a gold standard will lead to crippling periods of deflation if credit dries up. It is simple relative scarcity of money.
if the food destroyed wasn't worth the money to harvest, transport and sell, farmers would not need the federal govt to force them to plough under their crops or destroy their livestock. they would've done it of their own accord. in the example of the house, the destruction of a fit home can never be justified unless it is to make way for something else. to destroy something to simply limit supply is just stupid. how people can see it any other way eg flint michigan, will baffle me until the end of time.
for a start, i don't believe in a fixed gold std. secondly, i have no issue with deflation. credit in a free market never dries up, the interest rate fluctuates naturally to keep the credit stream intact. when the money supply is short, interest rates rise, this encourages savings. when money is in good supply, rates drop, discouraging savings and encouraging consumption.
now i know that you favor a system of infinite credit, where the interest rate is kept artificially low, like the one we currently have. this system definitely has its benefits. growth rates can be boosted immensely, but it simply is not sustainable. at some point, and i'd argue we're at that point, the infusion of capital by the state or central bank, has very little effect on the economy. while i know you favor a 10% inflation rate, that can be particularly brutal to the poor, and it's debatable whether it can be halted at that level
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
