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)
 
Old 11-24-2011, 02:00 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,879,436 times
Reputation: 1517

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Except that that UCLA work used scrubbed data so the authors could come up with their desired conclusions.
If you're trying to judge economic policy, I think it's perfectly reasonable to discard government employment stats. The economy could be in the crapper, and the government could hire every single person in the country creating 0% unemployment, but that wouldn't change the fact that the economy was in the crapper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,955 posts, read 17,991,982 times
Reputation: 10398
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
This is not the likely cause.

The fact is that WPA was cut in the summer of 1938, and unemployment rose by 5 percent in the following six months. That's a pretty strong tip about what caused what. Demand for labor doesn't just drop five percent for no reason. It only drops that far that fast when employers in the private sector face a sudden, unexpected crisis (financial meltdown, widespread credit freeze, bank failures -- that kind of stuff). There was nothing in the private sector that happened like that.
I'm talking '36-'37 you're talking '38. Your analysis is unfounded since you cannot even get the dates correct. I just explained to you using facts how money was taken from the private sector so they couldn't retain employees and you missed it by a mile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
What happened is that the country at that time was dependent on federal dollars for employment.
What happened was government bypassed the free market and used force to make people dependent on government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Government put people to work where the private sector did not.
Government took money from the private sector that is used to retain employees. You are ignorant of that aspect of business. Government short sightedness extended the depression. gee go figure. Lets sacrifice the future for today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
When the government shuttered production, unemployment rose with it. Almost instantaneously. There's not even a credible debate about this. Anything to the contrary is a rewrite of history.
LMAO Speaking of rewriting history, you missed the boat on the time frame. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
This is complete and utter nonsense. I'm sorry, mate. I've been an employer,
First off mate. I doubt you run anything more than a garage business. To say you run a "business" and think that means it speaks for the business model is nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
and I'll tell you straight up: in the private sector, nobody gets hired and retained in down times for the heck of it. Well, except for the family business, or the owners who have completely lost touch with reality and don't plan on staying in business much longer.
Your ignorance is showing. Tax on Undistributed Profits. When companies have profits taken away from them in down times which is what the new deal did, they cannot retain employees. That is an economic fact.
For the most part only foolish companies would get rid of employees at the first sign of trouble even though they are making money. Which is why successful companies do not dump people at the first sign of trouble. Those companies would not attract quality workers once business picked up. The cost of training is factored into the business model. If you had any business acumen you'd know that. When a company makes a profit and there is no expansion being made you plan for the future by doing two things. Invest in technology and retain employees in order to have a step up on the competition once business picks up. fact
When you make money and want to be around in the future that is exactly what is done to succeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Otherwise, it's very simple: the private sector acts according to the laws of supply and demand. If consumer demand goes down, there is no reason to 'retain employees around in down times.' In down times, companies aren't looking to retain employees, nor or they necessarily looking to use technology; they're looking to increase demand. That means competing with value, either with more service, lower prices, or better products, or a combination of all three.
LMAO when there is no demand they look to increase demand??? People were not spending except for the basics like food clothing and shelter. When there is no demand you shore up the business in other areas. People who understand the business model know this. It is very telling that you do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
The SS payments increased taxes, which was a bummer, but it also redistributed money and put it in the hands of consumers, which, in most cases, increased overall consumer demand. We're talking about averages here: there are surely regions in the country that were not particularly sensitive to the rise in social spending, one way or the other.
You mean government welfare which is less effective in the long run. Redistributed?? lmao you mean stolen. The amount of people paying into compared to those receiving was 50 to 1 at the inception. You were saying?

There was not an increase in consumer demand since there was no increase in money. Person A who wanted to spend their money couldn't because their money was stolen to help person B. No gain whatsoever. They cancel each other out. Banks were forced to have higher reserves. The money supply, through less lending, was decreased instead of increased. Qualified companies could not get loans because of this.
Crops were plowed under while people starved. Only a fool would think that is a good policy.

We know for a fact government does not run businesses as effectively as the private sector. Too much waste. Is it any wonder the depression was prolonged. Government did not let the market run its course and bottom out. Once it does, recovery begins. We are seeing a perfect example with the housing market. Most places it hasn't hit bottom yet which is why people are not buying houses. Once we hit bottom the upturn begins. No where to go but up.

In order to understand the booms and busts you have to understand the business cycle. Government creates the booms and busts and the busts are always worse than the booms. You want to rely on the very ones who crushed the economy to make it better?? That is insane. They are not even business people, they are politicians.

Is that what you do with your "business"? Someone makes decisions that puts your company at risk and you say to them "okay you got us into this you get us out" or do you fire them? The private sector gets rids of losers yet you, in your infinite wisdom give them a longer leash. Do you wonder why I doubt you run a business? If you do you must have the best workers around or you are the luckiest person alive.

Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 11-24-2011 at 03:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,864 posts, read 5,004,879 times
Reputation: 4207
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
The two are Libertarians, not much more needs to be said.
So because of someone's philosophical and political leanings they can never be right? If that's your worldview no wonder you're wrong about so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,925,171 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthGAbound12 View Post
So because of someone's philosophical and political leanings they can never be right? If that's your worldview no wonder you're wrong about so much.
Their limited view of reality is not conducive to sound conclusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,925,171 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Yikes.. Someone need to tell you that Congress is two branches, the House and Senate?

Who the hell said either branch cant write it?
Come on, that's not even a decent attempt at deflection. Your limited knowledge was exposed, own up and move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:36 PM
 
29,920 posts, read 39,588,778 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Their limited view of reality is not conducive to sound conclusions.
You're like the hell and damn fire preacher who disagrees with anyone not willing to bow down before him. May they burn in hell for disobedience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,955 posts, read 17,991,982 times
Reputation: 10398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Perhaps you could post a link to that first statement? FDR introduced the commodities program to give food to people (precursor to food stamps) to give farmers a market for their products.

As far as the second statement, like someone said upthread, it all ties together. It's still "Crystal Ball Economics".
I understand you may not know the REASONS why crops were being plowed under but to say you've never heard of crops being plowed under amazes me.

FDR not only told farmers to destroy crops he paid them for it.

Digital History (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=471 - broken link)

"Because the 1933 crops had already been planted by the time Congress established the AAA, the administration ordered farmers to plow their crops under. The government paid them over $100 million to plow under 10 million acres of cotton. The government also purchased and slaughtered six million pigs, salvaging only one million pounds of meat for the needy. The public neither understood nor forgave the agency for destroying food while jobless people went hungry."

I still don't understand the crystal ball thing. History tells us quite a bit.

Maybe you don't understand the complexities of economics, dunno.
Friedman - Free to Choose
Watching that cleared up quit a few things for me and spurred me to research more. It is on you tube. It is long but broken down into easy to follow parts. Being able to explain economics in a manner the average Joe can understand is just one area where Milton Friedman excelled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,925,171 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
You're like the hell and damn fire preacher who disagrees with anyone not willing to bow down before him. May they burn in hell for disobedience.
I guess you are saying I defer to the knowledgeable. Yep, I think you got it finally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,975 posts, read 21,784,854 times
Reputation: 9677
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
For the same reason that FDR was elected. So many people liked his progressive ideas and thought they were helping them. Wasn't it FDR who was responsible for Social Security, one of those horrible entitlement programs of today? Many of those people didn't realize that SS wouldn't be as good as it appeared to them then.
So people on Social Security think they are being treated horribly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,975 posts, read 21,784,854 times
Reputation: 9677
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomzoom3 View Post
It will be interesting to see if Obama is also re-elected during a depression.
But we are now not so much as officially into a recession.
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 10:03 AM.

© 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