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.
Government intervention in the economy has spread like a wildfire in the last 6 years. From federally mandated executive compensation rules for companies and job roles that had nothing to do with the financial meltdown, to the ouster of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner at the behest of the White House, to forcing banks to take and keep Troubled Asset Relief Program money, Washington’s tentacles are reaching into the minutiae of private business dealings like never before. Setting aside the long-term philosophical questions this raises about the role of government in society.
Government has an important and legitimate role to play in a growing economy. It should enforce contracts, create a level playing field for all businesses, and steadfastly promote the rule of law. U.S. entrepreneurs can take it from there.
Started under Bush, Obama just continued it. Both asisles in Washington have blood on their hands. If they let things fail, we might need a world war to pull us out of a second great depression. Would that really be a good thing other than the fact it could possibly kill of some of the "surplus population?"
Started under Bush, Obama just continued it. Both asisles in Washington have blood on their hands. If they let things fail, we might need a world war to pull us out of a second great depression. Would that really be a good thing other than the fact it could possibly kill of some of the "surplus population?"
It started with Teddy Roosevelt, accelerated with Woodrow Wilson, with a short return to conservatism, during the Harding Coolidge years, with Hoover going back to government knows best and FDR taking the cake with the New Deal.
Before the Progressive Era, the only involvement in the economy the federal government had, was trade tariffs. Tariffs, that when balanced, put America to work. When they were too high they help tank the stock market taking the economy with it and too low, they take the workforce out of work tanking the economy with unemployment.
It's no secret that the federal government controlled 3% of the economy at the turn of the last century(1900). It really isn't a secret today, that the federal government controls 53% of the economy after Obamacare came to us all.
So that is a no on that proof? Figured you had a line graph showing how much the government controlled the economy through the years. For some reason I have yet to find anything that says the government now controls 53%.
So that is a no on that proof? Figured you had a line graph showing how much the government controlled the economy through the years. For some reason I have yet to find anything that says the government now controls 53%.
You know, if he had argued 100%, I might have been willing to accept that opinion, as under certain definitions it does. They could easily print 100 trillion bucks, and mess with the entire economy. And almost every transaction has some sort of regulation attached, but the 53% is such a odd and exact number I figured he could back it up, we could read that, and go from there. But not so far. I even googled it, and didn't see anything in the first couple pages.
It started with Teddy Roosevelt, accelerated with Woodrow Wilson, with a short return to conservatism, during the Harding Coolidge years, with Hoover going back to government knows best and FDR taking the cake with the New Deal.
Before the Progressive Era, the only involvement in the economy the federal government had, was trade tariffs. Tariffs, that when balanced, put America to work. When they were too high they help tank the stock market taking the economy with it and too low, they take the workforce out of work tanking the economy with unemployment.
Regulations occur for a reason. And over time more and more of them occur as people or companies do bad things. They've had to be made more and more complex because of attorneys.
It started with Teddy Roosevelt, accelerated with Woodrow Wilson, with a short return to conservatism, during the Harding Coolidge years, with Hoover going back to government knows best and FDR taking the cake with the New Deal.
Before the Progressive Era, the only involvement in the economy the federal government had, was trade tariffs. Tariffs, that when balanced, put America to work. When they were too high they help tank the stock market taking the economy with it and too low, they take the workforce out of work tanking the economy with unemployment.
Hoover believed in supply side tax relief which didn't work then and don't work all too well now because money don't trickle down. The Reagan years were an anomaly of supply side taxes relief working but when Hoover tried them, they didn't work and neither did Bush 43's.
As for the tariffs that is not quite true. Up through Nixon they never took America off the gold standard either. That is something else economically the federal government did prior to Roosevelt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Regulations occur for a reason. And over time more and more of them occur as people or companies do bad things. They've had to be made more and more complex because of attorneys.
Want a simpler set of regulations?
Step 1: Put all the attorneys against a wall
I got an idea, companies follow the triple bottom line which includes social and environmental bottom lines on top of the traditional financial bottom line and not doing things unethical and/or illegal, and we wont need regulation. We don't need regulations if people think of others and not just themselves.
Location: SF Bay Area (recent MN transplant...go gophers)
148 posts, read 149,343 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
...with a short return to conservatism, during the Harding Coolidge years...
Absolutely. This is proven by the fact that after the tenures of Mr. Harding and Mr. Coolidge, the economy retained its strength and vitality for decades to come.
And by "decades" I mean "5 months" because that's how long it took after Mr. Coolidge's departure before the economy went like:
...which you can't really place on Hoover's "regulatory policies" or whatever. A president simply can't make that large of a long-term economic impact in the same time amount of time it takes to, say, redo the paint and furniture in the Oval Office. Same reason why nobody should blame Bush for the 2001 recession.
Also, the tariffs thing? Already tried that in 1930 to combat the Depression. Smoot-Hawley. Didn't work out that well. Knocked our international trade down about 8%, actually.* Even Milton Friedman thought it panned out badly.
*JB Madsen, "Trade Barriers and the Collapse of World Trade," 2001, Southern Economic Journal. Great article, definitely recommend it. You can find it on Virginia Commonwealth University's website. GO RAMS.
Absolutely. This is proven by the fact that after the tenures of Mr. Harding and Mr. Coolidge, the economy retained its strength and vitality for decades to come.
And by "decades" I mean "5 months" because that's how long it took after Mr. Coolidge's departure before the economy went like:
...which you can't really place on Hoover's "regulatory policies" or whatever. A president simply can't make that large of a long-term economic impact in the same time amount of time it takes to, say, redo the paint and furniture in the Oval Office. Same reason why nobody should blame Bush for the 2001 recession.
Also, the tariffs thing? Already tried that in 1930 to combat the Depression. Smoot-Hawley. Didn't work out that well. Knocked our international trade down about 8%, actually.* Even Milton Friedman thought it panned out badly.
*JB Madsen, "Trade Barriers and the Collapse of World Trade," 2001, Southern Economic Journal. Great article, definitely recommend it. You can find it on Virginia Commonwealth University's website. GO RAMS.
We had a 13% average tariff before Smoot-Hawley(18+%). It was pretty well balanced where we were in equal competition with sales in the USA, of import v. domestically produced.
Smoot- Hawley went way too far. It got things out of balance. Talks leading up to the higher tariffs, made the stock market start to tumble, on speculation it was gaining steam to pass. Even though Hoover said he would veto it. Hoover bought off by big US corporations, signed the ACT into law and it tanked all imports and exports.
We had a 13% average tariff before Smoot-Hawley(18+%). It was pretty well balanced where we were in equal competition with sales in the USA, of import v. domestically produced.
Smoot- Hawley went way too far. It got things out of balance. Talks leading up to the higher tariffs, made the stock market start to tumble, on speculation it was gaining steam to pass. Even though Hoover said he would veto it. Hoover bought off by big US corporations, signed the ACT into law and it tanked all imports and exports.
More specific percentages, got a link to back that up?
We had a 13% average tariff before Smoot-Hawley(18+%). It was pretty well balanced where we were in equal competition with sales in the USA, of import v. domestically produced.
Smoot- Hawley went way too far. It got things out of balance. Talks leading up to the higher tariffs, made the stock market start to tumble, on speculation it was gaining steam to pass. Even though Hoover said he would veto it. Hoover bought off by big US corporations, signed the ACT into law and it tanked all imports and exports.
Hoover also tried supply side tax cuts too in order to create work, that didn't work then and don't work now. As much as we hate New Deal and Great Society programs for deificit creation, we need them to create demand to put people back to work to meet that demand. If we don't create a larger demand, we have seen so many times, the private industry are perfectly fine not trying to increase it themselves.
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.
