U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-05-2011, 09:23 AM
 
19,445 posts, read 13,186,441 times
Reputation: 4873

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
WRONG again.. The New Deal and the World War did not both do the same thing.. There is a HUGE difference between paying people to produce, and paying people NOT TO..
People keep forgetting to mention that after WWII the US was about the only manufacturing sector still left intact. We were the only game in town for a decade, while every other country was rebuilding, the US was the world's manufacturing dynamo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2011, 11:15 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,946 posts, read 21,929,906 times
Reputation: 6537
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The Surpeme Court ruled the New Deal unconstitutional in 1935, and yet the unemployment continued to drop. The New Deal had NO EFFECT..

More ignorance. The ENTIRE New Deal was NOT declared unconstitution, only PARTS of it was - mainly the parts that had to do with the getting wages and prices, the ACTUAL WORK part of the NRA continued unabated - this included the WPA - which went on to spend billions on reforestation, flood control, rural electification, water works, sewage plants, school buildings, slum clearance, student scholarships, and other projects

In addition, when the New Deal was then repassed in 1937, unemployment rate ROSE..

In 1937, Roosevelt decided to balance the budget and drastically cut deficit spending. Nearly simultaneously, the Federal Reserve raised reserve ratio requirements for member banks, leading to a contraction of the monetary base. THIS is what caused the 1937 recession - NOT the New Deal II


WRONG again.. The New Deal and the World War did not both do the same thing.. There is a HUGE difference between paying people to produce, and paying people NOT TO..
Actually the New Deal produced much - including some of the major dams such as the Grand Coulee Dam - that later was CRITICAL to the war effort, As mentioned, it improved flood control, rural electifications and whole slue of similar useful programs.

WWII on the other hand, mostly produced CONSUMMABLES - weapons such as shells and bullets that were destroyed by their use, and others such as tanks, ships and airplanes that were destroyed by the enemy, and of those that survived the conflict most were THROWN AWAY at the end of the war. There was very little in the way of consumer goods produced during the war.

More to the point however is the fact that WHAT was PRODUCED is not nearly so important to the economic recover as the fact that SOMETHING was produced - and in the case of WWII that "something" was done largely at the expense of the US government.

WWII "ended" the recession because of the MASSIVE government spending. By 1944 MORE THAN HALF of the entire nations' GDP was due directly to GOVERNMENT SPENDING. With government spending esssentially DOUBLING the GDP it's NO WONDER the economy BOOMED. This is why I say it cracks me up when folks like yourself claim that the New Deal had no effect on the economy but that WWII ended the recession. The New Deal had a lot less effect on the economy than WWII did because the amount of money the government pumped into the economy in the New Deal was TINY compared to what the government flooded into the economy in WWII.

THOSE are the FACTS.

Ken
Attached Thumbnails
The sharpest drop in unemployment since 1983-government-spending-percentage-gdp.bmp  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 11:20 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,591,148 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Actually the New Deal produced much - including some of the major dams such as the Grand Coulee Dam - that later was CRITICAL to the war effort, As mentioned, it improved flood control, rural electifications and whole slue of similar useful programs.

WWII on the other hand, mostly produced CONSUMMABLES - weapons such as shells and bullets that were destroyed by their use, and others such as tanks, ships and airplanes that were destroyed by the enemy, and of those that survived the conflict most were THROWN AWAY at the end of the war. There was very little in the way of consumer goods produced during the war.

More to the point however is the fact that WHAT was PRODUCED is not nearly so important to the economic recover as the fact that SOMETHING was produced - and in the case of WWII that "something" was done largely at the expense of the US government.

WWII "ended" the recession because of the MASSIVE government spending. By 1944 MORE THAN HALF of the entire nations' GDP was due directly to GOVERNMENT SPENDING. With government spending esssentially DOUBLING the GDP it's NO WONDER the economy BOOMED. This is why I say it cracks me up when folks like yourself claim that the New Deal had no effect on the economy but that WWII ended the recession. The New Deal had a lot less effect on the economy than WWII did because the amount of money the government pumped into the economy in the New Deal was TINY compared to what the government flooded into the economy in WWII.

THOSE are the FACTS.

Ken
Roosevelts won his election based upon his campaign of balancing the budget. This begain with the passing of the Economy Act in 1933 which cut federal spending by $243M which resulted in lower unemployment.

YOU CANT SPEND YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT..

And many of the projects completed during the New Deal was very similar to Obamas, it just MOVED when those jobs were going to be done.

And since you dont seem to understand the mathmatical computations involved

If a project takes 20 employees to do the work, and you do it now, instead of waiting the 2-3 years like was originally planned, the NET jobs creates = ZERO..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 11:23 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,946 posts, read 21,929,906 times
Reputation: 6537
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
many of the projects completed during the New Deal was very similar to Obamas, it just MOVED when those jobs were going to be done.
Nope.

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 04-05-2011 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 02:15 PM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,656,420 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Actually
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attac...entage-gdp.bmp Thank you for the graph we need to reverse the trend. Government spending can't continue to go up as a % of GDP forever. We need to fix the budget in dollar terms and then have big inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 08:19 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,946 posts, read 21,929,906 times
Reputation: 6537
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attac...entage-gdp.bmp Thank you for the graph we need to reverse the trend. Government spending can't continue to go up as a % of GDP forever. We need to fix the budget in dollar terms and then have big inflation.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I've said ALL ALONG that we need cut the budget - but there is a TIME and PLACE for everything - including pumping money into the economy when it's facing the worst economic downturn in nearly a century - and the argument that doing so doesn't help is JUST PLAIN WRONG. As I've already showed - WWII (when the economy BOOMED) reached a level of more than 50% funded by government - and all that government spending was the reason that boom took place. Is all that government spending something you want to do all the time? Of course not - but there ARE times when it's both prudent AND necessary. I don't like it, but THAT'S the way it is sometimes.

As the economy recovers THEN we can start dealing with the deficit - which is (again) what I've said ALL ALONG. The time to trim government spending is when the economy is doing WELL (as it was during a good part of the last Administration - when INSTEAD we continued to increase spending). The time NOT to do it is when we are either in a deep recession or when we're just starting to get out from under it again. With the economic recovery starting to pick up steam, they can probabably start trimming it somewhat now - as long as that trimming is not too extreme. In a year or so - assuming nothing derails the recovery - they can trim a bit more. Once the economy is on very sound footing, they can trim even more. This is not something we got into overnight and it's NOT something we're going to get from under overnight EITHER. Since budget cuts are going to result in layoffs from the government sector, we need to make sure that the private sector will be able to obsorb those layed off employees - otherwise all we've done is taken those workers from one government payroll (ie their job) to another (ie UE compensation - and YES I KNOW private employers pay into UE complensation, but for the time being it's the government picking much of the tab because the normal funds have been exhausted for many laid-off workers). We have to be SMART about how the government weens itself from all that spending - and NOT be doing it in a "knee jerk" fashion.

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 04-05-2011 at 08:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 01:12 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,330 posts, read 19,016,992 times
Reputation: 18436
Default Excellent news

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Private employers, the backbone of the economy, drove nearly all of the March job gains. They added 230,000 jobs last month, on top of 240,000 in February. It was the first time private hiring topped 200,000 in back-to-back months since 2006 ó more than a year before the recession started.

The unemployment rate dipped from 8.9 percent in February to 8.8
percent in March. The rate has fallen a full percentage point over the last four months, the sharpest drop since 1983.

Employment grew solidly in March - Business - Eye on the Economy - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com
Credit to President Obama!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 10:48 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,656,420 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
I'm not disagreeing with that. I've said ALL ALONG that we need cut the budget - but there is a TIME and PLACE for everything - including pumping money into the economy when it's facing the worst economic downturn in nearly a century - and the argument that doing so doesn't help is JUST PLAIN WRONG.
We could cut the size of government down to 10% of GDP tomarow and not have a problem with the economy contracting if we also gave everyone the same amount of money to spend for a short amount of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
As I've already showed - WWII (when the economy BOOMED) reached a level of more than 50% funded by government - and all that government spending was the reason that boom took place. Is all that government spending something you want to do all the time? Of course not - but there ARE times when it's both prudent AND necessary. I don't like it, but THAT'S the way it is sometimes.
What we need now is smaller government and fast. We are headed into a high inflationary period so why not freeze spending now and let inflation do the downsizing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post

As the economy recovers THEN we can start dealing with the deficit
The economy wonít start to recover until the prices for houses start going up and that wonít happen until we have had enough wage/price inflation to get the wages high enough to support higher house prices. With the falling house prices we are effectively have deflation? With higher input costs we are having inflation. The two together are called stagflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
- which is (again) what I've said ALL ALONG. The time to trim government spending is when the economy is doing WELL (as it was during a good part of the last Administration - when INSTEAD we continued to increase spending).
A housing bubble is not having the economy doing well take away that and we didnít see a recovery from the 1999 dot com bubble pop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
The time NOT to do it is when we are either in a deep recession or when we're just starting to get out from under it again.
I really donít see much improvement in the economy. The CRE bubble has been re-blown (Not good).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
With the economic recovery starting to pick up steam, they can probabably start trimming it somewhat now
After 4 years of 0.25% prime we should seeing a lot more than the small improvement that weíve seen. The stock market is being pumped up by the feds printing press. This is letting the top end feel better, but and this is a big but, the bottom end is far worse off than before. With the sharp clime in fuel prices we are going to see a contraction in the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
- as long as that trimming is not too extreme. In a year or so - assuming nothing derails the recovery - they can trim a bit more.
Just freeze it in terms of dollars and let inflation do its thing we are in for a 3X on the price of everything because the monetary base did an over 3X so just leaving the government the same size in terms of dollars will down size it nicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Once the economy is on very sound footing,
This wonít happen until the prises of houses start to go up and this wonít happen until we have more income to support higher house prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
they can trim even more. This is not something we got into overnight and it's NOT something we're going to get from under overnight EITHER.
http://www.bearishnews.com/wp-conten...l-debt-gdp.jpg You said it. It took us 30 years to get into this mess and unless we admit that we have a big problem we arenít going to get out of it in my lifetime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Since budget cuts are going to result in layoffs from the government sector, we need to make sure that the private sector will be able to obsorb those layed off employees
All you have to do to get to full employment quickly is to give everyone extra money to spend. About $1k extra for 3~4 months should do the trick nicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
- otherwise all we've done is taken those workers from one government payroll (ie their job) to another (ie UE compensation - and YES I KNOW private employers pay into UE complensation, but for the time being it's the government picking much of the tab because the normal funds have been exhausted for many laid-off workers). We have to be SMART about how the government weens itself from all that spending - and NOT be doing it in a "knee jerk" fashion.
This is true. Freeze spending. Then Up the minimum wage by 4X at the same time pump a lot of money into circulation by printing it and giving it to everyone. Put a tax on the payment if interest on debt this will keep the debt bubble collapsing. Start an enforced savings plan. (In credit unions not banks) This will tend to balance trade. Done correctly this should get us a rowning economy and one on a sound economic footing faster than any of the alternative ways of going about doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post

Ken
[quote=LordBalfor;18603670]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top