• 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

Labor force shrinks again, dropping the unemployment rate. The economy is creating mostly part time jobs, not that helpful. They ought to count a full time job as 1 job and a part time job as half a job at most. It's misleading to claim all these jobs were created when they are mostly part time.
 
MTAtech;1063487623]While you smugly assert you understand economics better than me, saying so doesn't mean it is so, Nothing in your narrative is supported by history or economics. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that low taxes have resulted in greater economic activity or more job growth -- none. Your argument then collapses into, 'it's just not fair to tax rich people more.' Well, with all the moral battles to fight in this world, the right of rich people to hold onto more of their money isn't on my top ten.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and that opinion isn't supported by history at all. Tax rates have only been cut three times in modern history, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and each time economic growth spiraled upwards and apparently you cannot explain it because as I stated your understanding of economics and the four components of GDP is limited at best. i really am getting tired of fighting for you to keep more of what you earn while you don't even appreciate it.

I suggest you review economic activity and job creation AFTER the JFK Tax cuts, After the Reagan Tax cuts, and After the GW Bush tax cuts. I defy you to prove those results would have happened without the tax cuts. Reagan created 17 million jobs, Bush 9 million until 2008 and both inherited recessions.

Liberal economics just don't work and yet you continue to promote them. Guess some people never learn.

What is clear and apparent is that the period of time following the New Deal until the Reagan Revolution, a period of high taxation on wealth, strong unions and a wide safety net, produced unprecedented economic gains for the middle-class. These gains further resulted in a better educated middle-class that spurred productivity further, with more economic gains. Those gains were all but erased with movement conservatism that lowered upper-income taxes, reduced the safety net and was hostile to unions.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted. Why in the world would you promote high taxation on individual wealth which you created and take away the individual freedom to spend that wealth the way they see fit. Do you really believe a Govt. bureaucrat can spend it more efficiently and effectively? Is that why we have a 17 plus trillion dollar debt? Strong unions? LOL, yep 11% agree with you and the majority have chosen not to belong getting sick and tired of union management that produces nothing getting six digit yearly salaries. This country was built on individual responsibility and individual freedom, you promote nothing of the sort.

As far as your question, "what percentage of one's income should a person pay in Federal, State, and Local Taxes," is concerned, I could live with the tax-rates under Reagan, 50% top income rate with a 60/40% tax on short/long term capital gains.
Click to expand...
'
Didn't say tax rates, said what percentage of one's personal income should people actually pay, in other words the effective rate? If you think people paid 50% under Reagan you are naive and very gullible. Further you ignore state and local taxes. Wonder why?

I see you nothing more than a big govt. liberal out of touch with reality and the foundation upon which this country was built. Maybe another country offers you the Utopia you seek.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, I can read, can you? Show the chart of discouraged workers prior to 1993. Discouraged workers were included in the U4 report not the U-3 which are now the official numbers released to the public. The official numbers are the U-3 and do not include discouraged workers.
Click to expand...
ummm you seem to be having trouble understanding the charts, too. The current U-4 is unemployed plus discouraged as a percent of the labor force plus discouraged. This is the new definition as of 1994. The official rate previously was the U-5 which is the same as the current U-3 with one small change (the change has nothing do do with discouraged).

But you were talking about the OFFICIAL definition:
Conservative said:
That was true until Clinton in 1993 changed the formula for calculating the OFFICIAL unemployment rate by removing Discouraged workers from the number. They are now still counted but not in the official reported rate. Prior to 1993 discouraged workers were included in the official reported rate.
Click to expand...
And the OFFICIAL definition, from 1967 to 1993 was
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Click to expand...
Answer yes or no...in that OFFICIAL definition, would those who have not looked for work in the last 4 weeks because they believed they wouldn't find work be included or not?

And further, your own link proves you wrong. In discussing the old alternative measures, they write "The last of Shiskin's measures, U-7, built on U-6 by adding the number of discouraged workers to both the numerator and denominator. Shiskin assumed that people classified as discouraged workers-those who wanted work, but who were not currently looking because they believed that their search would be futile-very much resemble the unempled and therefore should be counted as such. (Because these persons were not looking for work at the time of the survey they were officially classified as not in the labor force.)"

So, one more time...I gave you the pre-1994 and current definitions. There was a change in definition, yes. Can you even tell?

1967-1993 Definition: Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

1994 to current DefinitionL Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
 
Anthony60 said:
Labor force shrinks again, dropping the unemployment rate. The economy is creating mostly part time jobs, not that helpful. They ought to count a full time job as 1 job and a part time job as half a job at most. It's misleading to claim all these jobs were created when they are mostly part time.
Click to expand...

The labor force went up. And the jobs report (the plus 288,000) doesn't and can't distinguish between full and part time. It just asks about people on the payroll.
 
pinqy said:
ummm you seem to be having trouble understanding the charts, too. The current U-4 is unemployed plus discouraged as a percent of the labor force plus discouraged. This is the new definition as of 1994. The official rate previously was the U-5 which is the same as the current U-3 with one small change (the change has nothing do do with discouraged).

But you were talking about the OFFICIAL definition:
And the OFFICIAL definition, from 1967 to 1993 was Answer yes or no...in that OFFICIAL definition, would those who have not looked for work in the last 4 weeks because they believed they wouldn't find work be included or not?

And further, your own link proves you wrong. In discussing the old alternative measures, they write "The last of Shiskin's measures, U-7, built on U-6 by adding the number of discouraged workers to both the numerator and denominator. Shiskin assumed that people classified as discouraged workers-those who wanted work, but who were not currently looking because they believed that their search would be futile-very much resemble the unempled and therefore should be counted as such. (Because these persons were not looking for work at the time of the survey they were officially classified as not in the labor force.)"

So, one more time...I gave you the pre-1994 and current definitions. There was a change in definition, yes. Can you even tell?

1967-1993 Definition: Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

1994 to current DefinitionL Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Click to expand...

Sorry but changing the definition of a discouraged worker doesn't change the fact that discouraged workers aren't counted in the official unemployment percentage released to the public but are in the U-6 rate. Seems you have a problem understanding that.

As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.
Click to expand...

This country offers the U-6 rate which most low information voters ignore.
 
Economic Stimulus during Difficult times has worked for over 100 Years

"In essence, during the course of the depression, Britain took the course of static supply adjustment while Germany stimulated effective demand and expanded industrial supply capacity by increasing and adjusting capital formation. For example, Germany dramatically increased investment with regard to social overhead capital, such as in the management of electric power transmission lines, roads, and railroads, while this input stagnated or decreased in Britain and the investment helped to stimulate industrial demand in Germany. The resulting difference in capital formation accounts for the divergent levels of industrial production in the two countries and the different growth rates during and after the depression.[36]"
 
Buddha C said:
Economic Stimulus during Difficult times has worked for over 100 Years

"In essence, during the course of the depression, Britain took the course of static supply adjustment while Germany stimulated effective demand and expanded industrial supply capacity by increasing and adjusting capital formation. For example, Germany dramatically increased investment with regard to social overhead capital, such as in the management of electric power transmission lines, roads, and railroads, while this input stagnated or decreased in Britain and the investment helped to stimulate industrial demand in Germany. The resulting difference in capital formation accounts for the divergent levels of industrial production in the two countries and the different growth rates during and after the depression.[36]"
Click to expand...

There is no greater stimulus in a private sector economy than to allow people to keep more of what they earn. Govt. strings attached to any stimulus is nothing more than micromanagement and will lead to the failure we see today. Rebate checks aren't the answer and never will be, actual rate cuts are but not to big govt. liberals who don't believe people spend their own money right.
 
Conservative said:
There is no greater stimulus in a private sector economy than to allow people to keep more of what they earn. Govt. strings attached to any stimulus is nothing more than micromanagement and will lead to the failure we see today. Rebate checks aren't the answer and never will be, actual rate cuts are but not to big govt. liberals who don't believe people spend their own money right.
Click to expand...

Rebate checks?

Please look up the definition of Social Overhead Capital.

In fact, just so I'm not the douche I generally am I'll send you short script: Strategy of unbalanced growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Conservative said:
Sorry but changing the definition of a discouraged worker doesn't change the fact that discouraged workers aren't counted in the official unemployment percentage released to the public but are in the U-6 rate. Seems you have a problem understanding that.
Click to expand...
They're included in the U-4, U-5 and U-6. The point is they have NEVER been included in the official definition, although a version was included before 1967.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you were misinformed about them being removed from the official definition in 1994? You can plainly see they were not removed because they weren't in it.
 
pinqy said:
They're included in the U-4, U-5 and U-6. The point is they have NEVER been included in the official definition, although a version was included before 1967.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you were misinformed about them being removed from the official definition in 1994? You can plainly see they were not removed because they weren't in it.
Click to expand...

Not hard at all, because the official rate excludes the discouraged workers. Why is that so hard to get through your head. Here is the chart that is so hard for the left to understand. thanks for acknowledging that the U-3 Rate which is the official reported number doesn't include discouraged workers.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Years: 2004 to 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.2 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.1 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 15.9 15.6 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.2 12.1
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
There is no greater stimulus in a private sector economy than to allow people to keep more of what they earn. Govt. strings attached to any stimulus is nothing more than micromanagement and will lead to the failure we see today. Rebate checks aren't the answer and never will be, actual rate cuts are but not to big govt. liberals who don't believe people spend their own money right.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to call you stupid, but you should really check out my post from the previous page that was likely overlooked as it was the last one.

Buddha C said:
Why would Anyone still be stupid enough to believe that tax cuts lead to Economic growth? Even that useless retard reagan, who instigated the trickle-down drivel, didn't believe that.

""Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.""
Click to expand...
 
DA60 said:
I know I said I wouldn't, but I just cannot resist...

so John Williams lied about this?

'lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.'

Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com


A lie requires intent. And since you CANNOT know what John Williams intent was when he made said statements (unless he stated them each time), then you cannot know his intent.

So where is your proof of his intent or do you just commit defamations of character as a hobby?


Plus, you say he 'likes to tell' this supposed lie.

Are you personally familiar with him? Has he told you that he derives pleasure from uttering said statement? Because unless he has - and you can prove it - then it appears that you are just going around putting words in his mouth.

And if you cannot prove it and you admit that you made the statement knowing you could not prove it...then it appears that it is you that is guilty of telling a lie.
Click to expand...

Actually, by your own definition, you would have to prove my intent. Which, since you cannot know my intent since I did not state it and you cannot read my mind, then you cannot, by your own logic, accuse me of lying either.

But then you're known for demanding a different standard of other people than yourself.
 
Conservative said:
Not hard at all, because the official rate excludes the discouraged workers. Why is that so hard to get through your head. Here is the chart that is so hard for the left to understand. thanks for acknowledging that the U-3 Rate which is the official reported number doesn't include discouraged workers.
Click to expand...
I never said it did. When will you admit that the official definition NEVER did? They were not "removed" in 1994, because they weren't there to remove!
 
Buddha C said:
I'm not trying to call you stupid, but you should really check out my post from the previous page that was likely overlooked as it was the last one.
Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that the problem we have is a spending problem not people keeping more of what they earn. Quite frankly I am getting tired of arguing for you to keep more of what you earn. Just send your paycheck to the govt. and maybe they will send back what they think you need to live on

The 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. budget never is a problem with liberals and certainly is never enough to provide for the liberal spending appetite. You see, liberals like you think only with your heart and as long as you are told it is spending in the name of compassion that is fine with you regardless of the fact that we aren't getting compassionate results

What is compassionate about 12.1 percent of 156 million Americans not working, being under employed, or discouraged?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Years: 2004 to 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.2 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.1 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 15.9 15.6 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.2 12.1
Click to expand...
 
pinqy said:
I never said it did. When will you admit that the official definition NEVER did? They were not "removed" in 1994, because they weren't there to remove!
Click to expand...

My use of the official definition of unemployment referred to the U-3 rate now being used and the U-3 rate didn't and doesn't include discouraged workers, prior to 1993 it did because the official rate was U-4
 
Conservative said:
There is no greater stimulus in a private sector economy than to allow people to keep more of what they earn. Govt. strings attached to any stimulus is nothing more than micromanagement and will lead to the failure we see today. Rebate checks aren't the answer and never will be, actual rate cuts are but not to big govt. liberals who don't believe people spend their own money right.
Click to expand...

Buddha C said:
Why would Anyone still be stupid enough to believe that tax cuts lead to Economic growth? Even that useless retard reagan, who instigated the trickle-down drivel, didn't believe that.

""Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.""
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
What you fail to understand is that the problem we have is a spending problem not people keeping more of what they earn. Quite frankly I am getting tired of arguing for you to keep more of what you earn. Just send your paycheck to the govt. and maybe they will send back what they think you need to live on

The 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. budget never is a problem with liberals and certainly is never enough to provide for the liberal spending appetite. You see, liberals like you think only with your heart and as long as you are told it is spending in the name of compassion that is fine with you regardless of the fact that we aren't getting compassionate results

What is compassionate about 12.1 percent of 156 million Americans not working, being under employed, or discouraged?
Click to expand...

But... I just posted how Republicans literally specifically increased the deficit (i.e. de facto spent more) just to hurt the country?

I don't... you... the gymnastics o.0
 
Buddha C said:
But... I just posted how Republicans literally specifically increased the deficit (i.e. de facto spent more) just to hurt the country?

I don't... you... the gymnastics o.0
Click to expand...

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
 
pinqy said:
Actually, by your own definition, you would have to prove my intent. Which, since you cannot know my intent since I did not state it and you cannot read my mind, then you cannot, by your own logic, accuse me of lying either.

But then you're known for demanding a different standard of other people than yourself.
Click to expand...

Try reading...I did not say you lied...I said it appeared that you lied...huge difference.


I will ask again, where is your proof of Williams intent to lie?

If you cannot prove his intent, then I must assume that you enjoy defaming people?


So where is your proof that John Williams of ShadowStats.com lied?
 
Conservative said:
My use of the official definition of unemployment referred to the U-3 rate now being used and the U-3 rate didn't and doesn't include discouraged workers, prior to 1993 it did because the official rate was U-4
Click to expand...

The U-4? The U-4 was people seeking full time work as a percent of the full time labor force. The official rate was the U-5: unemployed as a percent of the labor force.
but in 1994 the alternative measures were redone and the official rate (U-5) was renamed the U-3. The definition had one minor change.

The current U-4, unemployed plus discouraged as a percent of the labor force plus discouraged, didn't exist in any form before 1994.
 
DA60 said:
Try reading...I did not say you lied...I said it appeared that you lied...huge difference.
Click to expand...
Ah, then it appears you're a bully and an idiot. Note that I'm not accusing you of either...just saying you appear as both. is that how the game is played?
 
Conservative said:
There is no greater stimulus in a private sector economy than to allow people to keep more of what they earn. Govt. strings attached to any stimulus is nothing more than micromanagement and will lead to the failure we see today. Rebate checks aren't the answer and never will be, actual rate cuts are but not to big govt. liberals who don't believe people spend their own money right.
Click to expand...

Only decreasing taxes on those who have a high spending or conversely low savings rate. In other words, cutting taxes on the middle class, not the rich.
You can argue the fairness factor somewhere else, but the most effective way would be to lower the tax burden for lower income people, and make up for those lost revenues by taxing those who have an enormous savings rate: the rich
 
Buddha C said:
Economic Stimulus during Difficult times has worked for over 100 Years

"In essence, during the course of the depression, Britain took the course of static supply adjustment while Germany stimulated effective demand and expanded industrial supply capacity by increasing and adjusting capital formation. For example, Germany dramatically increased investment with regard to social overhead capital, such as in the management of electric power transmission lines, roads, and railroads, while this input stagnated or decreased in Britain and the investment helped to stimulate industrial demand in Germany. The resulting difference in capital formation accounts for the divergent levels of industrial production in the two countries and the different growth rates during and after the depression.[36]"
Click to expand...

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
 
pinqy said:
Ah, then it appears you're a bully and an idiot. Note that I'm not accusing you of either...just saying you appear as both. is that how the game is played?
Click to expand...

I will ask again, you called John Williams of ShadowStats.com a liar.

Where is your proof that John Williams intended to deceive and thus lied?
 
DA60 said:
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
Click to expand...

Do me a favor.

Put me back on your ignore list, I will not deal with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom