• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US economy adds 288,000 jobs in June

Really...economic stimulus helps? Interesting.

Let's take the Great Depression

Between 1930 and 1942, the national debt was TRIPLED.

And what did America get for all this new debt?

The DOW never got to more then 51% of it's pre-crash level.

And the unemployment rate in 1939 was still FIVE times higher then it was before the crash.

Doesn't sound too successful to me.


And now let's look at austerity and how it worked during the 1920/21 depression:

And the unemployment rate in 1939 was still FIVE times higher then it was before the crash.

Dow Jones Industrial Average (1920 - 1940 Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

The Great Depression Statistics

That is your idea of a 'Keynesian theory success'?

Noted.


Now compare it to the 1920/21 Depression.

The Wilson/Harding administrations slashed spending (much of it war spending, granted). But between 1920 and 1923, they cut spending in half AND cut tax rates.

What was the result?

The unemployment rate was apparently 1.4% before the crash and 2.4% by 1923.

And the DOW went from roughly 108 to about 105 by 1923.


In short - Hoover/FDR handling of Great Depression+ (1930-40/41)...national debt triples, DOW barely reaches 1/2 of it's pre-crash level and unemployment is 5 times worse (in 1939) then it's pre-crash level.

Wilson/Harding handling of 1920/21 Depression...national debt is cut by roughly 20%, both DOW and unemployment levels are back to near pre-crash levels within 3 1/2 years.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/160861-case-austerity-has-crumbled-7.html#post1061850091

Depression=/=GREAT Depression

Anyways, does Hoover Blankets ring a bell?
 
Do me a favor.

Put me back on your ignore list, I will not deal with you.

You still are..I just made an exception.

So you cannot handle when practically all I do is post facts?

Interesting.


Hey, if you don't want to deal with me...then just ignore me.

I do it with lots of people, it does make things go smoother around here.

Try it.


Good day.
 
Really...economic stimulus helps? Interesting.

Let's take the Great Depression

Between 1930 and 1942, the national debt was TRIPLED.

And what did America get for all this new debt?

The DOW never got to more then 51% of it's pre-crash level.

And the unemployment rate in 1939 was still FIVE times higher then it was before the crash.

Doesn't sound too successful to me.


And now let's look at austerity and how it worked during the 1920/21 depression:

And the unemployment rate in 1939 was still FIVE times higher then it was before the crash.

Dow Jones Industrial Average (1920 - 1940 Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

The Great Depression Statistics

That is your idea of a 'Keynesian theory success'?

Noted.


Now compare it to the 1920/21 Depression.

The Wilson/Harding administrations slashed spending (much of it war spending, granted). But between 1920 and 1923, they cut spending in half AND cut tax rates.

What was the result?

The unemployment rate was apparently 1.4% before the crash and 2.4% by 1923.

And the DOW went from roughly 108 to about 105 by 1923.


In short - Hoover/FDR handling of Great Depression+ (1930-40/41)...national debt triples, DOW barely reaches 1/2 of it's pre-crash level and unemployment is 5 times worse (in 1939) then it's pre-crash level.

Wilson/Harding handling of 1920/21 Depression...national debt is cut by roughly 20%, both DOW and unemployment levels are back to near pre-crash levels within 3 1/2 years.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/160861-case-austerity-has-crumbled-7.html#post1061850091

Oh, by the way:

I won't bother reading it because you didn't provide links or use unbiased facts.

Your source is clearly biased to an extremely excrable prestidigital sense.
 
But... I just posted how Republicans literally specifically increased the deficit (i.e. de facto spent more) just to hurt the country?

Neither party does it to hurt the country - even though it does. Politicians see their power in the ability to spend money. It is about power, not the good of the country.
 
Don't expect someone with your leaning to understand economic growth, the components of our private sector economy, and the effects of economic growth on govt. revenue. Trying to understand exactly how cutting income taxes that led to a significant increase in govt. revenue caused the deficits? Hmmm, must be liberal math.

Can you tell me that the 9 million jobs created from January 21, 2001 to December 31, 2007 would have happened without the tax cuts? You do realize that you if you are working are still paying less taxes today than then but that expenses today aren't the same as then. Tax cuts need to be reinforced

So...if tax cuts are wonderful for an economy and tax hikes are so detrimental to an economy, how is it then that the longest streak of positive private-sector job growth on record (before the current streak under Obama) followed the tax HIKES by Bush 41 and Clinton? How is it that our economy did quite well in the 1950's even though we had a 90% top marginal tax rate (under Eisenhower, no less)? How is it that the longest streak of positive private sector job growth on record has come under Obama with his oh-so-tyrannical stimulus and tax increases? Betcha didn't see that particular headline on Fox News!

You ask why we added 9M jobs under Bush (and Obama's added more than that in less time, btw) - I reply with the fact that we were in a war...and economies normally expand in a war. What brought us out of the Depression? The taxpayer-funded build-up for WWII. And I remember very well what my fellow conservatives were saying during the 1982 recession (which was then the worst since the Depression) under Reagan: "We just need a good war". Why did people say that? Because they understood then that wars tend to force economies to expand. But why do wars cause economies to expand? Because most wars, being taxpayer-funded, are in economic terms nothing more than government-funded economic stimuli.

Feel free to refute what I've pointed out to you.
 
You still are..I just made an exception.

So you cannot handle when practically all I do is post facts?

Interesting.


Hey, if you don't want to deal with me...then just ignore me.

I do it with lots of people, it does make things go smoother around here.

Try it.


Good day.

Hey, I'm open for a real debate, but, like I said:

I won't bother reading it because you didn't provide links or use unbiased facts.

Your source is clearly biased to an extremely excrable prestidigital sense.
 
Neither party does it to hurt the country - even though it does. Politicians see their power in the ability to spend money. It is about power, not the good of the country.

You are absolutely correct.

I mean given certain allowances, like special interest groups, but yes true in reality even they do it for Power/Money/Avarice whatever appelation one wishes to put on it.

That's why we need a heavily armed society with a liberal interpretation of the 2nd and 1st Amendments.
 
So...if tax cuts are wonderful for an economy and tax hikes are so detrimental to an economy, how is it then that the longest streak of positive private-sector job growth on record (before the current streak under Obama) followed the tax HIKES by Bush 41 and Clinton? How is it that our economy did quite well in the 1950's even though we had a 90% top marginal tax rate (under Eisenhower, no less)? How is it that the longest streak of positive private sector job growth on record has come under Obama with his oh-so-tyrannical stimulus and tax increases? Betcha didn't see that particular headline on Fox News!

You ask why we added 9M jobs under Bush (and Obama's added more than that in less time, btw) - I reply with the fact that we were in a war...and economies normally expand in a war. What brought us out of the Depression? The taxpayer-funded build-up for WWII. And I remember very well what my fellow conservatives were saying during the 1982 recession (which was then the worst since the Depression) under Reagan: "We just need a good war". Why did people say that? Because they understood then that wars tend to force economies to expand. But why do wars cause economies to expand? Because most wars, being taxpayer-funded, are in economic terms nothing more than government-funded economic stimuli.

Feel free to refute what I've pointed out to you.

Just give him a few minutes to find a far right think tank to refute you with already refuted papers of their own.
 
Hey, I'm open for a real debate, but, like I said:

I won't bother reading it because you didn't provide links or use unbiased facts.

Your source is clearly biased to an extremely excrable prestidigital sense.

Of course I provided links...it's right in my post...at the bottom.

It links to the source where there are links from unbiased sources for every stat I posted...so no idea what you are going on about with that.

Here it is again:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/160861-case-austerity-has-crumbled-7.html#post1061850091
 
Of course I provided links...it's right in my post...at the bottom.

It links to the source where there are links from unbiased sources for every stat I posted...so no idea what you are going on about with that.

Here it is again:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/160861-case-austerity-has-crumbled-7.html#post1061850091

All you did was equate a relatively small POST-WAR RECESSION IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU EXIT A GLOBAL DAMN WAR

To a Great Depression brought on by over-speculation and re-entry of European farming products into the global market (plus a dust bowl from over-exploitation of resources)

Let me try a THIRD Time.

Hey, I'm open for a real debate, but, like I said:

I won't bother reading it because you didn't provide links or use unbiased facts.

Your source is clearly biased to an extremely excrable prestidigital sense.

(Addendum: Or obviously flawed misinterpretations a first year student of economics could see.)
 
All you did was equate a relatively small POST-WAR RECESSION IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU EXIT A GLOBAL DAMN WAR

To a Great Depression brought on by over-speculation and re-entry of European farming products into the global market (plus a dust bowl from over-exploitation of resources)

Let me try a THIRD Time.

Hey, I'm open for a real debate, but, like I said:

I won't bother reading it because you didn't provide links or use unbiased facts.

Your source is clearly biased to an extremely excrable prestidigital sense.

(Addendum: Or obviously flawed misinterpretations a first year student of economics could see.)

First, the 1920/21 depression could have been handled by stimulus...but the governments of the day chose austerity...they appeared to choose right.

And the Hoover/FDR administrations could have chosen austerity to handle the Great Depression, but they chose massive stimulus/government intervention.

And IMO, they chose wrong..big time.

In short - Hoover/FDR handling of Great Depression+ (1930-40/41)...national debt triples, DOW barely reaches 1/2 of it's pre-crash level and unemployment is 5 times worse (in 1939) then it's pre-crash level.

Wilson/Harding handling of 1920/21 Depression...national debt is cut by roughly 20%, both DOW and unemployment levels are back to near pre-crash levels within 3 1/2 years.


Do you dispute any of the statistics in the highlighted portion are generally accurate?


Btw, no idea how your last part relates to this discussion since you provided no links or stats to back up your opinions and I provided links from unbiased sources to EVERY stat I listed.
 
Last edited:
First, the 1920/21 depression could have been handled by stimulus...but the governments of the day chose austerity...they appeared to choose right.

And the Hoover/FDR administrations could have chosen austerity to handle the Great Depression, but they chose massive stimulus/government intervention.

And IMO, they chose wrong..big time.

In short - Hoover/FDR handling of Great Depression+ (1930-40/41)...national debt triples, DOW barely reaches 1/2 of it's pre-crash level and unemployment is 5 times worse (in 1939) then it's pre-crash level.

Wilson/Harding handling of 1920/21 Depression...national debt is cut by roughly 20%, both DOW and unemployment levels are back to near pre-crash levels within 3 1/2 years.


Btw, no idea how your last part relates to this discussion since you provided no links or stats to back up your opinions and I provided links from unbiased sources to EVERY stat I listed.

It's a generally accepted fact today that past interpretations were Wrong.

Hey, with Statistics I can prove increased ice cream consumption leads to Higher Murder Rates. Doesn't make it true.

Most economists now accept that the main dip in the Great Depression was from slacking economic stimulus (plus ditch digging it just Stupid, frankly)

Wilson/Harding DID make the correct choice.

Why?

Because the economy needed to shift into a new post-war economic equilibrium. I never argued against that.

I'm not providing links, because to be candid, I don't consider you worth the time.
 
It's a generally accepted fact today that past interpretations were Wrong.

Hey, with Statistics I can prove increased ice cream consumption leads to Higher Murder Rates. Doesn't make it true.

Most economists now accept that the main dip in the Great Depression was from slacking economic stimulus (plus ditch digging it just Stupid, frankly)

Wilson/Harding DID make the correct choice.

Why?

Because the economy needed to shift into a new post-war economic equilibrium. I never argued against that.

I'm not providing links, because to be candid, I don't consider you worth the time.

And most economists completely missed the housing crash (even though a nobody like me saw it coming - as did many people - years before it arrived)...most economists don't know **** about macroeconomics, IMO.

I don't care about opinions from 'economists' - if I had, I would have listened to them and not liquidated my portfolio in late summer '07 and gotten burned like most others did.

I care about facts/stats from unbiased sources.

So far, I have provided them to back up my statements and you have provided none to back up yours.


A little friendly advice...if you want to not get burned in investments, never listen to economists/experts...do your own research.

You might still get hurt, but the fault will be yours and not those macroeconomic ignoramuses who mostly pass for 'economists'...including those at the Fed (who also failed to see the INCREDIBLY obvious housing crash coming even when it had already started).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-usa-fed-idUSBRE90H13Q20130118
 
Last edited:
And most economists completely missed the housing crash (even though a nobody like me saw it coming - as did many people - years before it arrived)...most economists don't know **** about macroeconomics, IMO.

I don't care about opinions from 'economists' - if I had, I would have listened to the and not liquidated my portfolio in late summer '07 and gotten burned like most others did.

I care about facts/stats from unbiased sources.

So far, I have provided them to back up my statements and you have provided none to back up yours.


A little friendly advice...if you want to do well in investments, never listen to economists/experts...do you own research.

You do know Economic think tanks were bought by Bank Lobbyists and other Special Interest Groups, Right?

"A little friendly advice...if you want to do well in investments, never listen to economists/experts...do you own research. "


This is Literally the most Sagacious thing you've ever written. Honestly, no sarcasm at all.
 
You do know Economic think tanks were bought by Bank Lobbyists and other Special Interest Groups, Right?

"A little friendly advice...if you want to do well in investments, never listen to economists/experts...do you own research. "


This is Literally the most Sagacious thing you've ever written. Honestly, no sarcasm at all.

Thank you.

And that is literally the first time I recall reading the word 'sagacious'.

Lol.

I thought you were insulting me until I looked it up.

Your vocabulary is clearly superior to mine.
 
Thank you.

And that is literally the first time I recall reading the word 'sagacious'.

Lol.

I thought you were insulting me until I looked it up.

Listen, we agree on something very important.

You cannot trust the experts entirely.

Why do you think I'm a Socialist?

Because I read Gailbraith, the Great Worldly Philosphers, studied the IMF Crisis, the 1998 Ruskie Fin. Crisis, the IMF-instigated Malawai famine, the Savage Capitalism of 19th century Central America, the economic conditions leading up to the conflagrations of the (except Guetamal where it was since, iirc 50s or 60s) 80s in war and fratricide (Central America), Pre-39 Nazi Germany, A Monetary History of the United States by Friedman and was able, due probably to luck or some other element of my personality, to read between the lines and see things for what they really were.

If I'm at the top, I'm going to push everyone else down.

It's nearly ALL about Relatively.

The more people at the top, or near the top, the lesser the disparity of Power I have.

It's only HUMAN, for the Rich to push those below them and keep them down. I would do it too, if I wasn't so well versed in the History of Exploitation and part of a "race" derived from rape and immiseration.
 
Last edited:
Oh and Douglas C. North's The Economic Growth of the United States: 1790-1860

Fantastic ****ing book. I recommend EVERYONE read it at least once. It's understandable and elucidates the historic preference of unfettered Capitalism to have a perniciously short-term time horizon of benefit and profit.
 
So...if tax cuts are wonderful for an economy and tax hikes are so detrimental to an economy, how is it then that the longest streak of positive private-sector job growth on record (before the current streak under Obama) followed the tax HIKES by Bush 41 and Clinton?

It wasn't cause and effect. The private sector growth was fueled by the internet, not tax increases.

You ask why we added 9M jobs under Bush (and Obama's added more than that in less time, btw) - I reply with the fact that we were in a war...and economies normally expand in a war.

Sounds like we completely ignored the current high unemployment rate.

What brought us out of the Depression?

Full employment

But why do wars cause economies to expand?

Full employment.
 
That's why we need a heavily armed society with a liberal interpretation of the 2nd and 1st Amendments.

That's why we need better limitations on the power of government.
 
That's why we need better limitations on the power of government.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Let the People have the Powers themselves necessary to limit the abuses of the government. They'll always find a way around everything until we put a physical barrier in the way, i.e. the average military capability of the Constituency.

Why does one think Hitler made it illegal for Jews to bear arms before he started to institute his most draconian policies?
 
It wasn't cause and effect. The private sector growth was fueled by the internet, not tax increases.

Which explains the current even-longer private sector growth how?

It doesn't. Neither does it explain the great economy we had when our top marginal tax rate was 90% in the 1950's and 70% in the 1960's.

Sounds like we completely ignored the current high unemployment rate.

Never mind that our population's current overall labor participation rate is still HIGHER than at any time before about 1978:

U.S.-Labor-Participation-Rate.jpg

Full employment

And was it private enterprise that drove that nearly-full employment? NO.

Full employment.

And during wars, is it private enterprise that drives nearly-full employment? NO.

ALL the examples of nearly-full employment are due to one thing and one thing only: GOVERNMENT SPENDING...and the taxes that spending requires.
 
Back
Top Bottom