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.
FDR's policies succeeded in keeping us in depression for 12 full years all by himself. That is the extent of his "success". Simply because the people worshiped him for his lush handouts, and analysts recognize the ruse today, doesn't mean that these analysts are "revisionist".
The "deal" as you put it is that as persons reach a state where they are able to help others, a healthy individual will do so. Most of the world is still seeking to provide themselves with the basic needs in life, so they aren't really considering the "big picture."
Also, the US (until the past couple of decades, thanks to tax cuts and military spending) has enjoyed a higher level of education than most of the world, so they can see situations from a more informed viewpoint.
Of course, not everyone here is healthy, concerned about others, or the big picture, but those of us that are can watch out for their interests, too.
What a strange argument. The US no longer enjoys a higher level of education because of tax cuts and military spending? What does one have to do with the other?
FDR's policies succeeded in keeping us in depression for 12 full years all by himself. That is the extent of his "success". Simply because the people worshiped him for his lush handouts, and analysts recognize the ruse today, doesn't mean that these analysts are "revisionist".
Actually there is good data supporting the idea FDR's policies prolonged the depression.
The problem with our system is that our monetary system is too unstable because of how it works, and that people are too obsessed with job security.
The problem with our monetary system is that, all money is created out of debt. Which means that if debts get paid off, then there is no money. If the money supply shrinks then there will be deflation, which will destroy the economy. To prevent deflation, the federal reserve lowers interest rates to keep up the demand for loans, to prevent the total outstanding debt from being paid off, which would shrink the money supply.
What that really means is that, the Federal Reserve wants to keep us in debt. Because in their view, debt is good for the economy. This underlying function of how the Federal Reserve works, is the cause for our continual bubble and bust economy.
The real problem comes in when even the actions of the Federal Reserve can't stop the money supply from shrinking, which is what happened during the Great Depression, which saw the money supply shrink by a third. Which is what caused widespread despair, as prices deflated, and farmers couldn't even sell their crops for what they spent in seeds and fertilizers to grow them. And there's no reason to believe that such an event couldn't happen today, because these underlying flaws in the Federal Reserve are really, unpreventable.
As for jobs, to understand the situation with jobs, you have to understand the shortcomings with a typical business cycle. Mainly, the hard part in business is how many times a product changes hands before it reaches the consumer. The further you are away on the supply chain from the consumer, the more difficult it is to read the market. This causes many manufacturers(who are furthest away) to overproduce. And when their production is too high, they tend to halt production entirely, or at least cut back hours till production is needed again. But when they cut back hours to their employees, this has an effect on macroeconomics(they stop buying stuff), which itself causes another slowdown that again affects manufacturing. In this sense, a symptom of the market is that there will constantly be economic upticks and slowdowns.
What many economists have tried to do, is smooth out these bumps by trying to use government as a tool to increase demand when its low(then supposedly to cut it off when it isn't needed). And they like increasing demand because it "grows the economy". Of course, most of the tools they use to "grow the economy" is in the form of debt. Either by lowering the Federal Reserve interest rate, or through government spending(which generally ends up in more public debt).
The problem of course is that what happens is that, since the manufacturers never receive the market signals to stop producing, and since government steps in to keep demand high, there tends to be continue to be more overproduction(a bubble). This bubble would normally not exist, or wouldn't get large before it burst, but since the government keeps injecting money to keep demand high, the bubble tends to grow and grow and grow, which cannot continue forever(regardless of the "multiplier effect" that people try to use to justify it). The problem is when it finally bursts, manufacturers are so overburdened with huge quantities of stock that they can't get rid of, they are forced to lay off huge numbers of workers, which completely devastates the economy.
Of course, the government doesn't want that, so it again goes back to trying to artificially "prime" manufacturing demand by injecting more and more money into the economy(bailout). But all they are really doing, is just reinflating the bubble.
So what is the fix to the system? It would be nice to get away from a debt-based monetary system. Which would keep the Federal Reserve from lending out money at below market rates. And we should prevent Congress from handing out bailouts and subsidies to businesses.
I would be interested in hearing proposals for a sound monetary system. I'm not entirely convinced that gold/silver is the solution either. I would need some proof that it would be impossible to tamper with its value by buying up large quantities of it and sitting on it till its value goes up(deflation), then selling it for a profit.
FDR's policies succeeded in keeping us in depression for 12 full years all by himself. That is the extent of his "success". Simply because the people worshiped him for his lush handouts, and analysts recognize the ruse today, doesn't mean that these analysts are "revisionist".
Then you will need to come up with data proving your case.
The evidence is conclusive that soon after FDR's policies were enacted, the GDP drop and unemployment rise reversed. The Depression started in 1929. FDR was inaugurated in March 1933. The first thing FDR does as President, is issue an Executive Order closing the banks for a holiday to stop the runs on banks. Then, he goes on radio to explain and bolsters confidence to the people. Look at the graphs below and see if the main assertion above makes any sense. (Note: in 1937, FDR listened to Republicans and scaled back the New Deal. See anything there?)
I addressed that finding in this post //www.city-data.com/forum/19082237-post43.html, whose link discredits those findings -- basically saying, the only way they could come up with their results was to skew and fudge the data.
While agenda based revisionists true to besmirch FDR's success, it is worth noting that the voters of the time disagree with today's revisionists, as they elected FDR four times in landslide elections.
Then you will need to come up with data proving your case.
The evidence is conclusive that soon after FDR's policies were enacted, the GDP drop and unemployment rise reversed. The Depression started in 1929. FDR was inaugurated in March 1933. The first thing FDR does as President, is issue an Executive Order closing the banks for a holiday to stop the runs on banks. Then, he goes on radio to explain and bolsters confidence to the people. Look at the graphs below and see if the main assertion above makes any sense. (Note: in 1937, FDR listened to Republicans and scaled back the New Deal. See anything there?)
Also, note that in the 1930s, all of those WPA workers didn't count as employed based upon the way employment was calculated.
I addressed that finding in this post //www.city-data.com/forum/19082237-post43.html, whose link discredits those findings -- basically saying, the only way they could come up with their results was to skew and fudge the data.
While agenda based revisionists true to besmirch FDR's success, it is worth noting that the voters of the time disagree with today's revisionists, as they elected FDR four times in landslide elections.
And the Smoot-Hawley tariff, held by conservatives as either the cause or an aggravating factor of the 1930's depression, was enacted under Hoover. Of course they don't mention that fact.
You see it in places like Europe and Asia. Even Canada. All of them are adopting and promoting a conservative economic plan.
How come liberals in the US seem to be the only one's opposed to getting our act together, financially?
What's the deal?
Oh, come on now. You know that the liberals found a secret garden of trees that just grow money everyday.
I actually dated a liberal even though I am conservative. He couldn't understand why I wanted a job and didn't want to live off the government. He just seemed to think every unemployed person should go on welfare and be content with poverty forever. Needless to say, we are no longer seeing each other. I wonder if all liberals think like him.
You see it in places like Europe and Asia. Even Canada. All of them are adopting and promoting a conservative economic plan.
How come liberals in the US seem to be the only one's opposed to getting our act together, financially?
What's the deal?
What in the world are you talking about?
For starters, Obama has offered much more than the GOP could wish for, and they are turning it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redroses777
I actually dated a liberal even though I am conservative. He couldn't understand why I wanted a job and didn't want to live off the government. He just seemed to think every unemployed person should go on welfare and be content with poverty forever. Needless to say, we are no longer seeing each other. I wonder if all liberals think like him.
If you look at the results of austerity in the UK under their conservative PM, it's nothing to emulate. David Cameron swept to power, he promptly cut spending, and, since then, the UK's economy--and tax revenues--have taken a dive.
When you cut spending, you also reduce future tax revenue, which defeats the purpose of trying to "close the deficit" in the first place.
The austerity argument--that "business confidence" will spike as soon as everyone sees that the government is finally getting its fiscal house in order--is a crock: Despite UK prime minister David Cameron's slashing and burning, no one's confident, and the government just had to revise its growth expectations downward.
The UK example is prime evidence that the conservative voodoo that the GOP is trying to sell in the U.S. that cutting spending is going to increase employment, is baseless as policy and has nothing but slogans -- and not evidence -- supporting it. Focusing on cutting spending, which increases unemployment and further reduces revenues which cause greater deficits makes no economic sense.
The liberal solution- keep spending and allow anarchy to unfold.
Of course there is going to be rough times when spending is cut. That is what auserity means. However, to keep spending simply compounds the misery that will occur in the future if the problem is not addressed.
It is shocking that liberals do not seem to understand this. I guess that Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain were not good enough lessons on the failures of massive federal spending and debt accumulation. Liberals must be very slow learners.
You see it in places like Europe and Asia. Even Canada. All of them are adopting and promoting a conservative economic plan.
How come liberals in the US seem to be the only one's opposed to getting our act together, financially?
What's the deal?
"US Liberals" would be considered Conservatives almost anywhere else in the world.
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.
