Cartoon from 1934...Chicago Tribune...look carefully at "Plan of Action for U.S." in the lower left corner:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health...,7114709.photo
Cartoon from 1934...Chicago Tribune...look carefully at "Plan of Action for U.S." in the lower left corner:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health...,7114709.photo
Last edited by vox; 04-19-2012 at 10:24 AM.
Lets see, 1934, wasn't that the year that the US started to recover from the great depression?
Y'all are wrong. GDP began to grow from its lowest point in 1933. That's "starting to recover." Y'all are pointing to the point when it got past the point of being feeble and susceptible to backsliding (start of war) and totally recovered (end of war). Of course y'all are doing so because you're politically unable to acknowledge the reality of the recovery of the 1930s, and that government intervention was necessary to end the GD (war is the ultimate economic stimulus; see also backsliding in '37 caused by FDRs panicked nearly balanced budget), so your responses are predictable.
so, lets see, GD started in 1929. FDR starts new deal spending in 33 (highest unemployement of GD at this time). economy as measured by GDP and unemployment starts to slowly recover. FDR, under pressure from "fiscal conservatives" passes balanced budget in 37, economy dips. FDR returns to spending, economy slowly creeps back up. WWII takes spending to new heights, by end of war, economy was rolling, ushering in boom of late 40s and 50s.
"Young Pinkies from Columbia and Harvard"
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that the official unemployment rate was still 17.2 percent in 1939 despite seven years of "economic salvation" at the hands of the Roosevelt administration (the normal, pre-Depression unemployment rate was about 3 percent). Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–40.
I remember when my dad sent me this email like a year ago.
Didn't BHO promise that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8% if his stimulus was passed?
you're shifting the goalposts (as well as showing a misunderstanding of keynesian principles of warming and cooling aggregate supply/demand). however, you are demonstrating why keynesian economics are now irrelevant as well due to the inability for the feds to draw down from 98.4 to 33 ever again.
you are wrong on this one.
and that cartoon is deliciously ironic.
why? because you say so? do you have a but-for analysis as to what would have happened to the u.s. economy were it not for those policies?
notwithstanding the reshifting of the goalposts, it is your opinion that the depressions of 1807, 1837, 1873, and 1893 can in any way be compared to what happened from 29-39?
What was the labor participation rate or whatever it is called for the depression years?
WWII had nothing to do with the recovery. Recovery began when the Fed got over the tight money bull$#@! that got us in trouble to begin with. Obvs there was a beginning of a recovery when there was a beginning of a break from gold.
It had everything to do with it. And it happened before we got directly involved. Beginning in 1940 we started supplying England to keep them in the fight. Takes a lot of workers to build all those bombs, tanks, planes, support vehicles, guns, etc. For a while we were supplying that to more countries than just ourselves.
the lefties are right to shovel because money is like manure in that it really stinks up the place when concentrated in an area and helps things grow when spread around like a ferterlizer.
Some Individuals of our Countrymen, by the Smiles of Providence or some other Means, are enabled to roll in their four–wheel'd Carriages, and can support the Expence of good Houses, rich Furniture, and Luxurious Living. But, is it equitable that 99, or rather 999 should suffer for the Extravagance or Grandeur of one? Especially when it is consider’d, that Men frequently owe their Wealth to the Impoverishment of their Neighbours.
History doth teacheth
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyor...5-edition.html
you know what finally turned around the US economy? Interning all the $#@!ing Japanese.
Do you mean the recession of 1945, or the recession of 1949? The post WWII recession really didn't end until The Korean War, which was followed by another recession in 1953. This is basic economic history and before you grasp onto your alternative economic theories it would behoove you to learn something about it.
I think the current preoccupation with the nature of money has caused people to take on some very strange and frankly silly ideas. Inflation can't be a strictly monetary phenomenon (as today's gold patriots insist) unless the monetary effect of spending also factors into productivity and thus growth and recession.
In other words, you are using a Keynesian perspective to reject a Keynesian perspective.
The question isn't whether monetary phenomena are real. The question is whether inducing the phenomena are worth it.
Last edited by bozo_casanova; 04-21-2012 at 11:05 AM.
Not surprised of it being so low for women since it was a physical labor based economy. FDR must have figured that since life expectancy was 60, that most people wouldn't draw SS but maybe 5 years before dying. That with 7 workers to each SS recipient it must have appeared fiscally reasonable.
No that would be 1941 or there abouts. The new deal was saved by the war. The recovery that was coming in fits and starts, from 31 thru 39 was being fueled by massive govt spending offset by pretty small gains in economic recovery, I believe.
Nothing like a good world war to jump start enecomy.
The only thing keeping the country from falling right back into economic doldrums after the war was the fact we were the only country left standing with a fully functioning industrial infrastructure capable supplying goods and wares to the rest of the world....you know capitalism.
Our military might (one of the few things our govt has been successful at) backed with capitalism saved the country and the world for that matter.
Our economy is built upon high amounts of personal debt, low savings rates, and a general lack of individual responsibility. No president can fix that -- the onky thing that can is actual consequences for poor choices. That being said, Obama needs to go becuase he obviously isn't fixing anything.
I am in the minority, but my belief is that we the people are the problem, not our government.
ndawg,
Our government could end all of the things it does that give preferences for debt.
Home ..
Advertise ..
ShaggyShop ..
PanchoChat
Football ..
Basketball ..
Baseball ..
Other Sports ..
RC Didn't Offer ..
Gamboool
Varsity ..
Hole in the Wall ..
PCL ..
Einstein's ..
Nasty's ..
GM Steakhouse ..
NSAA
Bada Bing ..
Can you help me with this? ..
Shagslist ..
Cloak Room ..
Classics ..
Bellmont