Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 01-20-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,937 posts, read 17,805,641 times
Reputation: 10366

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I already discredited your argument long ago:

Let's raise Capital Gains to 50% for all gains above $250,000
except you made it up
these are numbers YOU use for unemployment
1921 11.7%
1922 6.7
1923 2.4

Here are the Federal government figures on spending for those years
1920 6.8
1921 5.5
1922 3.8

tell me again how you discredited it?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2013, 01:06 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,937 posts, read 17,805,641 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
except you made it up
these are numbers YOU use for unemployment
1921 11.7%
1922 6.7
1923 2.4

Here are the Federal government figures on spending for those years
1920 6.8
1921 5.5
1922 3.8

tell me again how you discredited it?

here is the direct revenue numbers- federal
1920 7.4
1921 6.2
1922 4.3
1923 4.3
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 06:02 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,917,756 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
except you made it up
these are numbers YOU use for unemployment
1921 11.7%
1922 6.7
1923 2.4

Here are the Federal government figures on spending for those years
1920 6.8
1921 5.5
1922 3.8

tell me again how you discredited it?

This is how I discredited your claims, by using facts. As I stated in the original post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
First, where did you get you unemployment figures, because there were no official figures back then?
According to wiki, two different economists estimate as follows:

Unemployment rate
Year.....Lebergott.....Romer
1919 ....1.4%........3.0%
1920 ....5.2%........5.2%
1921 ....11.7%.......8.7%
1922 ....6.7.........6.9%
1923 ....2.4.........4.8%


You claimed that unemployment fell from from 12% to 4% due to conservative policies but what we see instead is unemployment soared, from 1.4% - 11.7% or 3% - 8.7%, depending upon the economist's estimate.

Second, according to the NBER, the 1920 recession started in January 1920 and ended in July 1921. The tax-cuts you mentioned didn't happen until 1922 (for upper-brackets) and 1923 (for lower brackets.) Those tax-cuts were after the recession already ended. You are misrepresenting cause and effect. How could the tax cuts be responsible for ending the recession when the cuts happened after the recession ended?

Third, let's look at government spending:

You claim that cutting government spending helped unemployment. I already showed that your basic facts were false but let's see the spending picture anyway. According to Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 1919 - Charts the following was the federal spending in the marked years:

Total/Defense Only $bil.)
1919 18.9/11.3
1920 6.6/2.6
1921 5.5/2.1
1922 3.8/1.3
1923 3.7/1.3

As one can see, World War I was over and government spending dropped from $18.9 bil. to $6.6 bil. from 1919 to 1920. That's what caused the recession and high unemployment. But it sure doesn't show that cutting government spending improved the economy; it shows the exact opposite. Yet, the Harding Admin. continued to cut spending and taxes. If your theory, namely, tax-cuts and government spending cuts are good, then why did another recession occur within three years? If your theory was correct, there should have been a long run of prosperity. But what we find is that from the end of the 1920 recession until the start of the Great Depression, a third of the time were recessionary -- and usually followed tax-cuts. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of their policies.

If anything, a revue of this period supports the Keynesian models -- cutting spending hurt jobs and the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 06:12 AM
 
Location: In a cave
945 posts, read 966,169 times
Reputation: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Exactly. You can't trust "the market" to regulate itself, and destroying the Federal Reserve would damage this country beyond belief
You can't trust a market which has been an axiom of commerce since the first stone was traded for wood amongst cavemen.

The Fed pumps creates a risk-free environment for banks, allows the banks to make money hand over fist off the backs of corporations and individuals and then explodes the country with inflation and bad monetary policy.


You should remove the "un" portion of your name, and add it in front of educated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,937 posts, read 17,805,641 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
This is how I discredited your claims, by using facts. As I stated in the original post:
But you lied about it
Government spending and revenue went down by 40 percent over 2 years time. Unemployment dropped from 12 to under 3
FACT Federal Revenue
1920 7.4
1921 6.2
1922 4.3
1923 4.3
FACT Govt Spending
1920 6.8
1921 5.5
1922 3.8

FACT Unemployment
1921 11.7%
1922 6.7
1923 2.4


Here's your first lie
You claimed that unemployment fell from from 12% to 4% due to conservative policies but what we see instead is unemployment soared, from 1.4% - 11.7% or 3% - 8.7%, depending upon the economist's estimate.
FACT unemployment went from 11.7 to 2.4 by 1923, IT WENT DOWN

Here's the second lie
But it sure doesn't show that cutting government spending improved the economy; it shows the exact opposite.

FACT Government spending went from 6.8 bil to 3.8 bil by 1922 setting the stage for prosperity in the 1920's.

Hers the next lie
If your theory, namely, tax-cuts and government spending cuts are good, then why did another recession occur within three years?
LMAO The roaring 20's was a recession time? What next?
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:41 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top