• 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!

Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

scottsoperson said:
The economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime. However, the unemployment rate never went below 9% before the draft. During the war the economy operated under so many different conditions that comparison is impossible with peacetime, such as massive spending, price controls, bond campaigns, controls over raw materials, prohibitions on new housing and new automobiles, rationing, guaranteed cost-plus profits, subsidized wages, and the draft of 12 million soldiers.
Click to expand...

What are you just measuring GNP? It's not sufficient because it measures government spending as being just as efficient as private sector spending so it gives you a false impression, In reality, it's somewhere between GNP and PPR.
 
phattonez said:
Except we had rationing; we were still in a depression during WWII. It was only when rules were relaxed after WWII that we finally got out of the depression.
Click to expand...

Really? This chart shows GDP per capita going sharply up during WWII. And dipping back down afterward.

saupload_gdp.jpg
 
From this thread, we can see how Scottsoperson managed to get 63 posts in a single day.

Tell the truth. You work for the Obama Ministry of Misinformation, don't you?

I am still trying to figure out how the last four pages have anything to do with the subject of this thread?
 
ptif219 said:
The problem is growing government does not grow the economy.
Click to expand...

Macro theory in regards to national income accounting says something quite different....
 
How much you want to bet they didn't hire the dead? :lol:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Macro theory in regards to national income accounting says something quite different....
Click to expand...

Because GDP counts government spending as being as efficient as private sector spending which is completely foolish. Real wealth is somewhere between GDP and PPR.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Macro theory in regards to national income accounting says something quite different....
Click to expand...



Really? I am no accountant, that much is for sure, but maybe you could explain how growing government grows an economy, in regards to real GNP?


j-mac
 
misterman said:
Really? This chart shows GDP per capita going sharply up during WWII. And dipping back down afterward.
Click to expand...

GDP does not accurately measure wealth because construction of war-time goods does not make our lives better, in fact you could say that they have negative wealth associated with them because they cause destruction. Also, government routinely overspends and creates things that are worthless (the best example of this are The Pyramids; they did not make the citizens of Egypt any better off).
 
phattonez said:
GDP does not accurately measure wealth because construction of war-time goods does not make our lives better, in fact you could say that they have negative wealth associated with them because they cause destruction.
Click to expand...


Well, that doesn't seem right to me....Doesn't the manufacture of war time supplies employ people? Don't they get paid? Then in turn don't they buy things with that money? Do not the raw materials have to be produced, transported, and made into a finished product, providing skills to grow the country after any war?

And how about the young men, and women sent off to war? I know the popular thing today is to only focus on the unfortunate souls that come back less than whole, either in mind, or in physical shape, but I am talking of the lion share that come back unharmed. They come back with skills, either in the ability to do what is necessary to work, or manage. They come back to be your police, firefighters, pilots, and pastors. They drive a nation forward with their ability to discern right from wrong instantly, and their no fail attitude.

And I think that makes the quality of life in America better for all who live here.


Also, government routinely overspends and creates things that are worthless (the best example of this are The Pyramids; they did not make the citizens of Egypt any better off).
Click to expand...


Sure they did, if for nothing else a sense of pride. And a wonder of the world. You think the world would be better if the pyramids were non existent?



j-mac
 
phattonez said:
Because GDP counts government spending as being as efficient as private sector spending which is completely foolish. Real wealth is somewhere between GDP and PPR.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with efficiency Phattonez. There are three aspects you can draw from, the product, income, or expenditure approach; all of which lead to the same number.

And by PPR, i believe you mean purchasing power parity.
 
j-mac said:
Really? I am no accountant, that much is for sure, but maybe you could explain how growing government grows an economy, in regards to real GNP?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Lets say the government decides to build another golden gate bridge. That spending generates both jobs and private sector spending, along with the welfare associated with having another mega bridge (less traffic, quick access across the pond, etc...

How about welfare????

People on welfare tend to spend all of what they receive. This money most certainly goes back into the hands of private industry creating jobs. If welfare ceased to exist, a whole bunch of jobs would cease with it.

You already covered the military aspect in your post above.
 
phattonez said:
GDP does not accurately measure wealth because construction of war-time goods does not make our lives better, in fact you could say that they have negative wealth associated with them because they cause destruction. Also, government routinely overspends and creates things that are worthless (the best example of this are The Pyramids; they did not make the citizens of Egypt any better off).
Click to expand...


7m.jpg


The pyramids are one of the worlds top tourist attractions,have been for quite some time. I guess you could say that they have made the people in Egyptians tourist industry a whole lot better off.

I haven't checked but I would imagine that the tourist industry has to be among the top money engines in Egypt.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Has nothing to do with efficiency Phattonez. There are three aspects you can draw from, the product, income, or expenditure approach; all of which lead to the same number.

And by PPR, i believe you mean purchasing power parity.
Click to expand...

By PPR I mean private product remaining. GDP is the wealth under the best circumstances and PPR is the wealth under the worst circumstances. Real wealth is somewhere in between.
 
phattonez said:
By PPR I mean private product remaining. GDP is the wealth under the best circumstances and PPR is the wealth under the worst circumstances. Real wealth is somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor and disregard Rothbard.... His anarcho capitalist romance is not in tuned with reality.

PPR is not considered substantial. Reason be, GDP does not measure wealth only output relative to a time series.
 
j-mac said:
Well, that doesn't seem right to me....Doesn't the manufacture of war time supplies employ people? Don't they get paid? Then in turn don't they buy things with that money? Do not the raw materials have to be produced, transported, and made into a finished product, providing skills to grow the country after any war?
Click to expand...

No. War products don't produce any wealth. Take the example to the extreme. Let's say that everyone in a certain country is employed producing war products. They get paid a certain amount. Then with that money, people want food and consumer goods. Surprise! These don't exist. So yes, people are employed and making money, but so what? They're not producing wealth. If government decided to pay everyone a base amount, but then every year they raise the salaries 2%. GDP would be growing in this situation, but the real wealth of the people would actually be decreasing (if there were population growth).

And how about the young men, and women sent off to war? I know the popular thing today is to only focus on the unfortunate souls that come back less than whole, either in mind, or in physical shape, but I am talking of the lion share that come back unharmed. They come back with skills, either in the ability to do what is necessary to work, or manage. They come back to be your police, firefighters, pilots, and pastors. They drive a nation forward with their ability to discern right from wrong instantly, and their no fail attitude.

And I think that makes the quality of life in America better for all who live here.
Click to expand...

Are the skills worth the price that we pay on the military? Probably not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should abandon the military. It's an important part of the protection of the country. That said, we have to realize that a military eats up wealth, it does not create it.

Sure they did, if for nothing else a sense of pride. And a wonder of the world. You think the world would be better if the pyramids were non existent?
Click to expand...

For the people of Egypt who built those pyramids, it was a tremendous waste of resources. Imagine the food and fresh water that was passed over because the resources were used to build those pyramids.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Do yourself a favor and disregard Rothbard.... His anarcho capitalist romance is not in tuned with reality.

PPR is not considered substantial. Reason be, GDP does not measure wealth only output relative to a time series.
Click to expand...

PPR is too pessimistic because it assumes that government cannot produce any wealth. GDP is too optimistic because it assumes that government spending is as private sector is spending. That's why I'm saying that the real number that we're interested in is somewhere in between.
 
phattonez said:
PPR is too pessimistic because it assumes that government cannot produce any wealth. GDP is too optimistic because it assumes that government spending is as private sector is spending. That's why I'm saying that the real number that we're interested in is somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

Governemt spending accounts for less than 22% of the economy. PPR is a misleading term, but to each their own i guess.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Governemt spending accounts for less than 22% of the economy. PPR is a misleading term, but to each their own i guess.
Click to expand...

22% is pretty substantial though. Imagine if you took away 22% of the wealth of Ethiopia. How much of their population would be wiped out?
 
phattonez said:
22% is pretty substantial though. Imagine if you took away 22% of the wealth of Ethiopia. How much of their population would be wiped out?
Click to expand...

But government gets that 22% via taxation and the semi complicated situation regarding net exports. (Due to negative net exports, the Fed is able to borrow what they do not tax).
 
Goldenboy219 said:
But government gets that 22% via taxation and the semi complicated situation regarding net exports.
Click to expand...

Well sure, the government takes that money from the economy and spends it. Some of it is redistributed, some of it is wasted (IRS), some of it is used for things that are not that efficient (like subsidizing a national park). 22% from an institution that does not spend money wisely is kind of a big deal.

(Due to negative net exports, the Fed is able to borrow what they do not tax).
Click to expand...

Could you expand on this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom