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.
You're referring to the manufacturing and economic boom in America after WWII, and claiming Keynesian stimulus was responsible?
After WWII, how many countries even had a manufacturing sector left standing? It's no wonder the US enjoyed an economic boom we were the only game in town, that is until a few decades later when other countries were able to get back up and running.
Already been pointed out in this thread but it's too complex for liberals to understand.
You cannot keep the bubble going. It is an economy based on lies and is therefore unsustainable.
It is a way for unscrupulous people to make some quick unearned money and leave the rest with the debts and a badly damaged economy.
Why are people today too ignorant to understand there is no free lunch.
I'm not a fan of bubbles. There is now free lunch but we can choose the kind of pain that we are going to have. Inflation true inflation tends to bring with it full employment.
You mean the private sector that was in shambles prior to the massive levels of government expenditures which placed American industry in a position to take advantage of consumer demand in the post war years.
You mean the private sector which was ruined by government manipulating the market. You forgot that key ingredient. The free money concept that led to the crash. Same thing that caused this crash.
So all we have to do is ride out a decade of horrible conditions, get into a global war for 5 years and things will be back to normal a couple years after that.
Your problem with Keynesian economics now is it would have to be done on a worldwide scale. Any attempt by a single country to enact Keynesian economics is only going to send wealth and power straight to where demand is and that's in Asia.
Fair enough, and that's a good point.
That's why most Keynesian are also in favor of enacting strict trade regulations, tighter border security and eventually higher tax rates. We may have lost a lot of blood already but it doesn't mean it's not too late to still stop the bleeding.
BTW, people say the reason the US did so well was because all the other countries were essentially wiped out after the war.
But I have a question for them.
What country do you think between WWII and now gave them the wealth to rebuild their country infrastructure and thus grow their economy? And it sure wasn't heavy regulation that "forced" us to do that.
This is far from a fact. It is a far fetched, incorrect contention. The facts are this-
1. A large cohort of younger citizens (G.I.s) needed housing
2. The demand for housing fueled the housing boom
3. The automobile allowed citizens to live in suburbia
4. Homes required consumer goods, such as appliances, which fueled a consumer spending boom
5. The expansion of suburbia further necessitated the increase demand for autos.
It is the private sector that fueled the economic boom, not the federal government. It is shocking and peculiar to read that someone would think otherwise. If centralized spending and "stimulus" created wealth, Cuba, North Korea, and the former USSR would be economic powerhouses. The fact that this is not true should cause one to pause and ponder.
The champion of Keynesian economics, the Nobel prize winner Stiglitz (read his books instead of just spouting nonsense) contends that keynesian economics makes perfect sense until a nation reaches the point of "unsustainable debt". He alludes that this number is 100% GDP. At this point, he offers no solutions to "grow out of the debt" and no plan as to how one would reduce debt at this time. Essentially, what they have done is led those believers to an economic cliff- a point of no return.
Keep in mind your Keynesian champion, only two years ago, showed the shining examples of Keynesian success as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal! They should ask him to return his Nobel prize.
Mention Obama or Keynesian, it's like a bell. Immediate reaction from the right, not to thought, simply to stimuli. Pavlov would be proud.
No actual argument here, just a bunch of vague innuendo and name calling. Karl Rove would be proud.
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.
! They should ask him to return his Nobel prize.
