Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The perils of government by poll; 1930s edition.

  1. #1
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    The perils of government by poll; 1930s edition.

    The Perils Of Government By Poll, 30s Edition - NYTimes.com

    Is there anyone who (besides myself) who (for the lack of a better word) is saddened by this? It never ceases to amaze me how such ancient thinking still persists in an era of open information. None the less, the rate of stimulus spending has peaked all the while growth prospects seem to be moving in accordance to the spending pattern of the said stimulus.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  2. #2
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,126
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: The perils of government by poll; 1930s edition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The Perils Of Government By Poll, 30s Edition - NYTimes.com

    Is there anyone who (besides myself) who (for the lack of a better word) is saddened by this? It never ceases to amaze me how such ancient thinking still persists in an era of open information. None the less, the rate of stimulus spending has peaked all the while growth prospects seem to be moving in accordance to the spending pattern of the said stimulus.
    Public opinion on this issue doesn't sadden me, it gives me hope. It's nice to know that common sense and economic history, haven't completely given way to the progressive beliefs being taught in our schools and endorsed by the main stream media.

    The author that re-published that 1938 poll was the Times's economist Paul Krugman. It's a mystery to me how anyone can still take his economic opinions seriously, considering every thing he's written for at least the last decade, has been based on partisanship and the advancement of his personal political agenda. In other words, his opinions are based more on who's in the White House, than they are economic reality.

    Putting that aside, Krugman sees the American people's opinion as ignorant, uninformed, and just as wrong today as he believes it was back then. That's because he, along with the majority of progressives/liberals ignore what resulted from FDR and Obama's policies of more spending and expanding the authority of the federal government. The American people saw that those policies then and now, were ineffective in jump starting the economy, creating jobs, and returning America to economic prosperity. They watched as the great depression went on and on for years after FDR's policies were enacted, and just like today, wanted the government to back off. People like Krugman ignore the obvious and claim that the reason those policies were ineffective, was because they should have spent more money, raised taxes, and expanded the federal government's size and control over the private sector even more than they had already.

    Just look at the major economic downturns over the last 90 years, how they were handled, and a pretty clear pattern emerges.

    The Depression of 1921 was in many ways, much worse than the one in 1929, but we don't hear much about it. That's because it lasted less than 2 years. President Harding's approach was downsizing and cutting government spending, major tax cuts and loosening regulations on private industry. The results were an economic boom called "the roaring 20's".

    The great depression has already been discussed. Many believe, including myself, that if it weren't for WWII, it might have gone on for many year more than it did.

    The recession of 1960/1961. Kennedy's approach was tax cuts across the board, and the results speak for themselves. It worked.

    The recession of the late 70's/early 80's. Reagan's approach was cutting taxes and loosening up government regulations. Again, success.

    The 2001 recession. Bush lowered taxes across the board, and again it quickly turned the economy around.

    The current recession speaks for itself. We have spent our asses off, and gotten very little bang for the buck. Guys like Krugman ignore what has worked in the past, and try to find alternative reasons to explain the success, while making excuses for why the policies they endorse have failed. So like I said, public opinion on this issue give me hope for the future and doesn't sadden me one little bit.

  3. #3
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: The perils of government by poll; 1930s edition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    The 2001 recession. Bush lowered taxes across the board, and again it quickly turned the economy around.
    Right, except that you're leaving out the part where the "recession" happened for the most part because America was freaking terrified. A lot of our "recovery" from that "recession" was restoring a feeling of national security.

    You're also leaving out the hand-over-fist lending that on the one hand spurred economic growth, and on the other hand landed us where we are now.

    Oversimplification (and Glenn Beck's hand up your ass) FTW!
    Last edited by TacticalEvilDan; 09-05-10 at 10:01 PM.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  4. #4
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: The perils of government by poll; 1930s edition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    The author that re-published that 1938 poll was the Times's economist Paul Krugman. It's a mystery to me how anyone can still take his economic opinions seriously, considering every thing he's written for at least the last decade, has been based on partisanship and the advancement of his personal political agenda. In other words, his opinions are based more on who's in the White House, than they are economic reality.
    There is no denying Krugman is left of center. However, i do no see how this discredits him (especially when you consider his academic and empirical achievements).

    Putting that aside, Krugman sees the American people's opinion as ignorant, uninformed, and just as wrong today as he believes it was back then. That's because he, along with the majority of progressives/liberals ignore what resulted from FDR and Obama's policies of more spending and expanding the authority of the federal government.
    So in one hand, you state the American people are "with it" by the fact that opinion polls of '38 coincide with your particular ideology. Yet when we consider the results (which trump ideology in the vast majority of cases), the American people are the ones responsible for voting the same politicians into office who have increased government spending. Are we to now consider your sentiments regarding public opinion and the outcome of the first Tuesday in November arbitrary? I would say so.

    Please remember, people actually believed that balancing the budget during economic downturns was vital and necessary (which we now KNOW is completely bunk).

    The American people saw that those policies then and now, were ineffective in jump starting the economy, creating jobs, and returning America to economic prosperity.
    Did you fail to consider the scope of the downturn relative to the "policies" implemented to combat them? Whether you like it or not, government spending (via a war none the less!) brought the US out of depression.

    They watched as the great depression went on and on for years after FDR's policies were enacted, and just like today, wanted the government to back off.
    Enlighten me. How much was spent by the FDR administration to combat the recession?

    People like Krugman ignore the obvious and claim that the reason those policies were ineffective, was because they should have spent more money, raised taxes, and expanded the federal government's size and control over the private sector even more than they had already.
    How can you be taken seriously when you make uninformed statements? The Keynesian remedy is based on boosting demand (which a tax increase will force downward pressure), which includes government spending, tax cuts, and a monetary policy based on maintaining liquidity in asset markets. Krugman and his lot call for tax increases during recovery to pay for increased deficit spending (naturally occurring during recessions ceteris paribus).

    The Depression of 1921 was in many ways, much worse than the one in 1929, but we don't hear much about it.
    Can you identify the inflationary situation prior to 1920?

    That's because it lasted less than 2 years.
    And did not involve a collapse of the financial system.

    President Harding's approach was downsizing and cutting government spending, major tax cuts and loosening regulations on private industry. The results were an economic boom called "the roaring 20's".
    Ending of the war combined with technological progression and the steady state (population growth) were marginal compared to policy

    The great depression has already been discussed. Many believe, including myself, that if it weren't for WWII, it might have gone on for many year more than it did.
    So you acknowledge unprecedented deficit sending? Fascinating!

    The recession of 1960/1961. Kennedy's approach was tax cuts across the board, and the results speak for themselves. It worked.
    Tax rates were much higher were they not? Can you enlighten us to what extent? What occurred on the fiscal front (was government spending reduced, held constant, or increased)?

    The recession of the late 70's/early 80's. Reagan's approach was cutting taxes and loosening up government regulations. Again, success.
    Double digit inflation signified the need to boost aggregate supply. None the less, you ignore the military Keynesianism and increase in government spending that occurred as a result. How convenient!

    The 2001 recession. Bush lowered taxes across the board, and again it quickly turned the economy around.
    Until September 2008.

    The current recession speaks for itself. We have spent our asses off, and gotten very little bang for the buck. Guys like Krugman ignore what has worked in the past, and try to find alternative reasons to explain the success, while making excuses for why the policies they endorse have failed. So like I said, public opinion on this issue give me hope for the future and doesn't sadden me one little bit.
    You have a most selective memory regarding economic history. I've already explained how your "hope" is based on false sentiment (unless elections do not matter). Given the accuracy (none the less depth; you have made no mention of interest rates or inflation) of your analysis, i do not expect a adequate response....
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-05-10 at 11:58 PM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •