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.
Actually there was quite a go-round about the National debt at the end of WWII. Ike wanted to get it all paid off, but the economists argued that a certain amount of debt was "healthy". They compromised on keeping $50 million. Source? Among others, Ronald Reagan.
Hmmm. The debt by V-J Day was about $260 billion. GDP in 1945 was $223 billion.
Please explain how a graph of US GDP between 1929 and 1940 has anything to do with that rambling bit of nonsense you cut & pasted into this thread. Seriously, I don't think anyone is follow you.
Actually there was quite a go-round about the National debt at the end of WWII. Ike wanted to get it all paid off, but the economists argued that a certain amount of debt was "healthy". They compromised on keeping $50 million. Source? Among others, Ronald Reagan.
Dude, you realize that Eisenhower was a kensian, right? He believed that government spending, if wisely targeted, could spur years of economic growth and improve living standards for the average American. That's why he spent more money then ever before on domestic programs such as the creation of the Interstate Freeway system, he gave states MASSIVE amounts of money to construct new schools and Universities, and to pay for all of this he upped the taxes on the rich all the way up to 90%. Yes, 90%.
Eisenhower was not a conservative or a right winger. In fact if he were alive today the Republican Party probably wouldn't even let him in but that doesn't change the fact that he was a great President.
It's chief problem is that it has to maintain output, even if it has to give the stuff away. For the foreseeable future, they will be happy to take as many dollars as we can send them, then loan them all right back to us again.
Tens of trillions of dollars worth of wealth have just gone up in smoke. The risk of deflation continues to be larger than that of inflation. At this point, a decent dose of inflation would be a rather welcome thing.
Carternomics hits = mindless right-wing blogs and the Heritage Foundation. Two peas in a pod there. Stagflation meanwhile was a Nixon/Ford thing. Low growth coupled with high unemployment and high inflation. Until the 1979 Arab Oil Crisis came along, Carter's years were characterized by strong growth and rapidly declining unemployment. I don't know where you were during the Carter years, but wherever it was, you certainly weren't paying any attention.
Was that in the Spring of 1942, when we were still losing the war? Would $25K in 1942 be the equivalent of about $325K today? How many people make more than $325K today? In a time of national crisis, would they really need more than $325K? Is it hard to live on that little? Not talking about wealth here, just income for this year...
Ford had a 11.03% inflation rate in 1974 that decreased in 1975. Carter had a 13.58% inflation rate in 1980. We fired him before he could screw things up worse.
"Tens of trillions of dollars worth of wealth have just gone up in smoke. The risk of deflation continues to be larger than that of inflation. At this point, a decent dose of inflation would be a rather welcome thing."
The debt we now have is backed with government bonds that we pay interest on. When we pay interest on our debt, the money supply decreases. Printing worthless paper will devaluate our currency causing prices to increase.
You realize that Carter was the one who made the Federal Reserve independent, right? You realize that Carter put Paul Volcker in charge of the Federal Reserve and Reagan kept him as Fed Chairman, right? The main reason Carter didn't get reelected wasn't the Iran issue it was that recession which happened when Volcker (quite correctly) dramatically raised interest rates to tackle inflation.
No, the revisionists are a tiny group that wanders the halls of places like the Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College muttering to themselves. They are hacks who, without the financing pumped in by wealthy far right-wingers and reactionaries, would be unheard of.
Maybe what we should do is start using the books from the early 1800's up to the mid 50's and then we will see that the revisionist are actuly the looney left groups that have been misrepresenting history since the 60's.
But I guess people like george soros and his funding of nutjob groups like moveon .org , or the central/south American illegal drug king who is pumping millons into the new york times to keep that looney left rag afloat don't count as hacks to you?
Ford had a 11.03% inflation rate in 1974 that decreased in 1975. Carter had a 13.58% inflation rate in 1980. We fired him before he could screw things up worse.
Carter was no more responsible for the 1979 Arab Oil Crisis than Nixon was for the one in 1973-74. These sorts of things are why the word exogenous was invented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The debt we now have is backed with government bonds that we pay interest on.
Maybe you meant "evidenced by". You can't back up one liability with another one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
When we pay interest on our debt, the money supply decreases.
It does? Interest paid does not end up as cash (M0), a demand deposit (M1), or a time deposit (M2)? If this is true, I'm going to have to start dumping some Treasuries...they told me I could make money off these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Printing worthless paper will devaluate our currency causing prices to increase.
How is this relevant to anything? You don't see the loss of some $15 trillion in wealth as a deflationary event for the US?
Maybe what we should do is start using the books from the early 1800's up to the mid 50's and then we will see that the revisionist are actuly the looney left groups that have been misrepresenting history since the 60's.
But I guess people like george soros and his funding of nutjob groups like moveon .org , or the central/south American illegal drug king who is pumping millons into the new york times to keep that looney left rag afloat don't count as hacks to you?
Illegal drug king? New York Times? Oh, man... Please see a doctor.
Jesus Christ on a stick, you are a simpleton. Three times, yes THREE TIMES the graph of US GDP growth has been posted in this thread. And apparently facts and reality just bounce right off your skull as if it was armor because you sure don't seem to absorb them or retain them in any way. Let's see if you get it the fourth time around so, for the fourth time, he is a graph of US GDP from the start of the depression in 1929 to the beginning of the New Deal in 1933, to full recovery in 1937 (4 years before the US became involved in WW2 and 2 years before the war in Europe even started), and then the first half of the war year.
That graph shows GDP of the US and just looking at 1933 to 1937 you can see that the New Deal radically improved the US economy growing it a total of 50% (!!!!). Moth, you simply haven't a damn clue what you are talking about.
Oh, and what about employment? Did the New Deal increase employment? Hell, yeah, between 1933 and 1937 the New Deal resulted in the level of employment going back up to the pre-Depression level of early 1929.
As you can see from both of those graphs (which use FACTS not your stupid talking points) the New Deal was a stunning success increasing both GDP and employment to their pre-depression levels in just 4 years growing both by over 50% during that 4 year period. That you run around ignorantly claiming the New Deal failed just shows everyone what a stupid git you are.
Oerdin, please! It is, at the very least, inadequate to post a random bar graph. It is outright dishonest to do so without any analysis. To paraphrase a popular movie, Apes might read philosophy, but they don't understand it.
Those GDP figures are not reflections of real wealth expansion or capital expansion. Its goverment spending. Why don't you just roll out all the impressive economic stats from the USSR. They would only be slightly less credible.
The New Deal increased employment? Yes, because everyone from shoe shine boys to out of work actors to construction workers found themselves on the government payroll. Good grief, don't you know that? Again, the USSR made the same boast although they, like FDR, failed to mention that engineers were now selling newspapers on the government's dime.
The New Deal was a stunning success? Why then, is that period still called, without dispute by anyone, as the Great Drepression? Why did we not continue it? If the government can provide such a wonderous economic performance, what is the issue then? Why has not every president, prime minister, chancellor simply continued the New Deal in perpetuity giving us a permanent landscape of economic prosperity under the Keynsian banner?
Now, I am going to ignore your insults because they are nothing more than the immature banterings of someone who is not only economics-illiterate, but also desperate to tout a point of view.
But I will grant you some advice, Personally, I don't know the first thing about Nuclear Physics. Not a thing. Nothing. The result is that I do not converse much about it. Actually not at all. But mostly I do not come onto a website and post a bar graph which I can neither understand nor analyze. Because Oerdin, that really would make me a stupid git.
Please explain how a graph of US GDP between 1929 and 1940 has anything to do with that rambling bit of nonsense you cut & pasted into this thread. Seriously, I don't think anyone is follow you.
That was from one of FDR's cabinet members. His name was Morgenthau Jr. and he was the secretary of Treasury.
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.
