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 11-23-2011, 04:33 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,308,636 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Except that most voters didn't get checks.
Just some of the plans created under the "New Deal" which gave people stuff
FDR's New Deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Is that sarcastic? If not, it should be. In the 1930s, most seniors were living below the poverty line. That's not true today and the reason is SSA.
1 in 6 seniors live in poverty and thats artificially low because many of them now live in government housing, have their livelyhoods subsidized.

And those who are not living in poverty, are not relying on SSA for their livelyhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-23-2011, 04:35 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,876,347 times
Reputation: 1517
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
my mother and father lived during the depression, the only figures they had from that time was that unemployment was going up and up.

remember not to include any federal employment with calculations, as goverment does not produce anything at all. only the private sector can produce, goverment does nothing but take take and still more taking.

civilian conversation corp was all goverment, so those numbers should not be counted at all.
They went up I believe until about 33 and then dropped - but only slightly. They remained in the mid to high teens until 39 or 40.

Whether you count those numbers depends how you look at it. Yes, government jobs may not be as beneficial to overall wealth as private sector jobs but the fact that people were working does have an impact. I do see what you're saying though, if you're discussing benefits of economic policy as it pertains private sector growth, government employment is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,586 posts, read 23,166,391 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
my mother and father lived during the depression, the only figures they had from that time was that unemployment was going up and up.

remember not to include any federal employment with calculations, as goverment does not produce anything at all. only the private sector can produce, goverment does nothing but take take and still more taking.

civilian conversation corp was all goverment, so those numbers should not be counted at all.
Wow, talk about cherry picking the stats. I see someone hasn't studied statistics too well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 04:38 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,876,347 times
Reputation: 1517
This may have already been posted but here it is again.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 14,003,074 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
The Keynesian model of federal spending had never been attempted before in US history. Given that the electorate did not have the historical background of repeated failure, as we do now, they were probably willing to give his policies a good try. Now we know better.
You don't realize how preposterous that statement is. They couldn't have followed Keynesian principles in 1932 because Keynes didn't write The General Theory until 1936.

But the general notion held by conservatives that Keynesian economics doesn't work has no factual basis. They reject Keynes because his work disproves their ideology, namely the government can't help, monetary policy doesn't work, etc.

Chris Sims, the 2011 Nobel laureate, speaking of Keynes said this,
Quote:
that he has been an active “promoter of new Keynesian macroeconomic models,” because they “are the place in our profession where theory and data and policy decision-making are coming together.”

“It doesn’t really make much sense to stand on the sidelines and take potshots at them,” he said. “If you don’t like the way they’re working, you should try to do better.”
Another Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman wrote this in October:

Quote:
Part of the story is the perceived failure of the Obama stimulus, which is seen as a refutation of Keynesianism even though those of us who took our Keynes seriously predicted that this would happen. A reader [that reader was me - MTAtech] reminds me of what I said on Jan. 6, 2009:
Quote:
This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan’s perceived failure, if it’s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats.

I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”
The narrative that Keynes is discredited is perpetuated by those who have an ideological agenda and those that don't know any better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,954 posts, read 17,970,730 times
Reputation: 10397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
And where did THEY get their crystal ball? You know, there's a saying in health care, you don't kill the patient to cure the disease. This is how I feel about this "prolonging the Depression" nonsense. You don't kill the country to cure the economy. If the Depression went on a little longer b/c of some of Roosevelt's social policies (and 7 years is a real stretch b/c the Depression was about 12 years from the stock market crash to Pearl Harbor, and Roosevelt was president for about 9 of those years), his policies also helped a lot of people along the way.
The economy didn't improve much until after the war ended. What is the difference between unable to purchase products because you are out of work and unable to purchase products because there are so few available?

We got out of the mini depression of 1920 in two years time because government stayed out for the most part and market corrections were allowed to occur.

Mises told us exactly what to expect in the 1920's.
"“A great crash is coming, and I don't want my name in any way connected with it.” So said economist Ludwig von Mises when an Austrian bank offered him a job in 1929. The bank, one of Europe's biggest, collapsed in 1931."

Easy money and government spending causes the boom and bust cycles. That much is obvious. It caused the dotcom bubble and it caused the housing crisis. It is causing the cost of obtaining a college degree to sky rocket.

Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 11-23-2011 at 04:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 04:48 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,876,347 times
Reputation: 1517
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
You don't realize how preposterous that statement is. They couldn't have followed Keynesian principles in 1932 because Keynes didn't write The General Theory until 1936.

But the general notion held by conservatives that Keynesian economics doesn't work has no factual basis. They reject Keynes because his work disproves their ideology, namely the government can't help, monetary policy doesn't work, etc.
I can only speak for myself, but I do not doubt that Keynesian economics can be effective. I do however not see it as being effective in the long term nor as conducive to the accumulation of general wealth in the long term. Seems like little more than a jump start to me, and it must be followed by a boom in order to compensate for whatever was spent to make it work.

I admit I haven't done all the research on it but this is my initial impression from what I've gathered. Feel free to correct me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 04:49 PM
 
29,980 posts, read 43,064,423 times
Reputation: 12829
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Explain.


I don't have to wonder that most of you don't have a clue what Keynesian economic entails.
See the video of Dr. Woods explaining the 1920s depression I attached in my previous post. It will take about 42 minutes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,954 posts, read 17,970,730 times
Reputation: 10397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
What's common sense about economics via crystal ball?
Who said a crystal ball was used? Information is knowledge. How many people at the time of FDRs depression had access to information compared to today? Besides people like Mises and others like him who had that knowledge?

People love to follow the status quo and not do their own research now. Think of how bad it was back then when information was much harder to get.
FDR was a control freak plain and simple. Another king who thought he knew how to run others lives better than they did. He took advantage of a weak and desperate people. No wonder my parents always told me to save for a rainy day. People make desperate decisions in desperate times.
FDR took money out of the efficient private sector and gave it to the inefficient government. At least he spent it on the infra structure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,538 posts, read 33,436,334 times
Reputation: 7650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
That's an entirely different crime than murder, isn't it?
It's not a murder but it's still a crime. It's illegal to leave the scene of an accident. Or, if you have to leave the scene, report it as soon as possible; don't wait 10 hours!
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 02:22 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