Home Depot Co Founder:"Biden Does Not Understand How Business Works"

[Oldestyle]

Still waiting for you explanation for why the 1920 recession turned into the Roaring Twenties without government stimulus, Jake! You seem to be at a loss to explain that?

I have already explained it, see my post addressing this very recession above.

By the way the Roaring Twenties was disaster of unregulated capitalism, a classic and delusional market bubble.

The 1930's was a disaster of regulated capitalism...the 1920's was a decade of some of the strongest economic growth in US history!

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Still waiting for you explanation for why the 1920 recession turned into the Roaring Twenties without government stimulus, Jake! You seem to be at a loss to explain that?

I have already explained it, see my post addressing this very recession above.

By the way the Roaring Twenties was disaster of unregulated capitalism, a classic and delusional market bubble.

The 1930's was a disaster of regulated capitalism...the 1920's was a decade of some of the strongest economic growth in US history!

The Great Depression was caused largely by the unregulated Roaring 20s, buying on margin, lack of regulatory control on stock markets which became more and more nothing but a delusional rumour mill, financial fraud.

And finally the unregulated bubble popped as they always do.

 

[Dale Smith]

Hoover did not provide any serious relief until 1931 and even then he only created "the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts, this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty."

Then Congress "pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief."

Hoover did not authorise any significant spending until 1932 as the election neared and he could see the consequence of his economic failures.

Too little too late.

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

"The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.

Hoover also approved substantial farm subsidy increases, eased requirements for the issuing of Federal Reserve notes and established the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to support mortgages. In an attempt to pay for the new programs, Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, hiked corporate tax rates and increased the top personal tax rate from 25 to 63 percent."

FDR ran against Hoover accusing him of out of control government spending! Do you REALLY want to argue American history with a American who majored in history?

Yes as I said in my previous post, 1932 three years into the depression and after Hoover had resisted all calls for three years.

It is not until the election that he changed course, too little too late.

"Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided $375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February 1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes. "

" As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. "

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

Interesting...so did you want to take a crack at explaining why FDR accused Hoover of out of control spending when he was running against him?

Because FDR was a diabolical bastard when it came to politics and winning power. He would say what ever it takes to win. Even his closest political confidents stated "no one really knows him."

I do not even think Eleanor even knew him.

I am defending stimulus as a measure in a deflationary economic collapse, not FDR's personality.

You're defending a "myth", Jake! You still haven't explained how the US came back from the 1920 recession without the use of huge government stimulus programs. Care to address that?

I have explained it, read above. A more apt historical comparison is a global collapse such the depression in the Grant Presidency which I detailed.

The 20s recession was due to the end of the war which saw sharp reductions in demand for manufacturing and returning troops being added to the labour pool, added to that came the Spanish flu, germane to our own times.

Once again we had a lax, hands off President, Wilson this time.

Indeed even free market advocate Milton Friedman argued the recession of 1920–1921 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did the opposite of stimulus and actually caused it.

And indeed after World War Two, where the US could have experienced the same problem the US did not, because Truman had learned the lesson of contracting stimulus or monetary policy after a war too sharply, too quickly and that combined with the demands of the Cold War on government spending into the economy and manufacturing capacity witnessed phenomenal economic growth.

We saw phenomenal economic growth following WWII because the other great economic powers were devastated by the war! American industry was not. Government spending isn't what drove that economic growth...we were the only game in town!

It did, Cold War demands, after a short period of contraction, saw the government inject waves of money into the economy, the Marshall Plan too which as we all know rebuilt Europe and Japan saw contract after contract go to American firms in the most massive US tax dollar sponsored economic reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan.

Had US tax dollar not been used to reconstruct these economies the US would not have had the markets in Europe or Japan for a very long time.

By the way shortly there after the Korean War did not hurt, that war supercharged the Japanese economy.

You are a fucking idiot, the great Depression was artificially created because the robber barons behind the federal reserve tossed out the line of cheap money that had a provision of a "margin call" where those loans (extended by credit out of nothing of an intrinsic value) could be called in at any time. The banking oligarchs pulled out of the market when it was at it's highest and took their profits then did a margin call. The people then ran to the banks to pull out their money which didn't have every depositor's money and the market crashed. The robber barons then bought up stocks for pennies on the dollars and bought banks unaffiliated with the fed. In 1933, USA.INC went bankrupt and FDR changed a few words in the trading with the enemy act of 1917 and made every American an 'enemy of the state, an enemy combatant and under penalty of prison and massive fines made them turn in their gold (which is real money) and turned it over to the bankers in change for debt notes. To add further insult to injury, our labor was pledged as surety against the debt which is why the robber barons agreed to give the traitorous FDR an extension of credit for the 'New Deal"........

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Just as the GFC of 2008 was largely caused by the financial deregulation of Wall Street under President Clinton.

This economic mistakes take time before the eggs laid hatch.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Hoover did not provide any serious relief until 1931 and even then he only created "the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts, this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty."

Then Congress "pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief."

Hoover did not authorise any significant spending until 1932 as the election neared and he could see the consequence of his economic failures.

Too little too late.

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

"The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.

Hoover also approved substantial farm subsidy increases, eased requirements for the issuing of Federal Reserve notes and established the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to support mortgages. In an attempt to pay for the new programs, Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, hiked corporate tax rates and increased the top personal tax rate from 25 to 63 percent."

FDR ran against Hoover accusing him of out of control government spending! Do you REALLY want to argue American history with a American who majored in history?

Yes as I said in my previous post, 1932 three years into the depression and after Hoover had resisted all calls for three years.

It is not until the election that he changed course, too little too late.

"Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided $375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February 1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes. "

" As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. "

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

Interesting...so did you want to take a crack at explaining why FDR accused Hoover of out of control spending when he was running against him?

Because FDR was a diabolical bastard when it came to politics and winning power. He would say what ever it takes to win. Even his closest political confidents stated "no one really knows him."

I do not even think Eleanor even knew him.

I am defending stimulus as a measure in a deflationary economic collapse, not FDR's personality.

You're defending a "myth", Jake! You still haven't explained how the US came back from the 1920 recession without the use of huge government stimulus programs. Care to address that?

I have explained it, read above. A more apt historical comparison is a global collapse such the depression in the Grant Presidency which I detailed.

The 20s recession was due to the end of the war which saw sharp reductions in demand for manufacturing and returning troops being added to the labour pool, added to that came the Spanish flu, germane to our own times.

Once again we had a lax, hands off President, Wilson this time.

Indeed even free market advocate Milton Friedman argued the recession of 1920–1921 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did the opposite of stimulus and actually caused it.

And indeed after World War Two, where the US could have experienced the same problem the US did not, because Truman had learned the lesson of contracting stimulus or monetary policy after a war too sharply, too quickly and that combined with the demands of the Cold War on government spending into the economy and manufacturing capacity witnessed phenomenal economic growth.

We saw phenomenal economic growth following WWII because the other great economic powers were devastated by the war! American industry was not. Government spending isn't what drove that economic growth...we were the only game in town!

It did, Cold War demands, after a short period of contraction, saw the government inject waves of money into the economy, the Marshall Plan too which as we all know rebuilt Europe and Japan saw contract after contract go to American firms in the most massive US tax dollar sponsored economic reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan.

Had US tax dollar not been used to reconstruct these economies the US would not have had the markets in Europe or Japan for a very long time.

By the way shortly there after the Korean War did not hurt, that war supercharged the Japanese economy.

You are a fucking idiot, the great Depression was artificially created because the robber barons behind the federal reserve tossed out the line of cheap money that had a provision of a "margin call" where those loans (extended by credit out of nothing of an intrinsic value) could be called in at any time. The banking oligarchs pulled out of the market when it was at it's highest and took their profits then did a margin call. The people then ran to the banks to pull out their money which didn't have every depositor's money and the market crashed. The robber barons then bought up stocks for pennies on the dollars and bought banks unaffiliated with the fed. In 1933, USA.INC went bankrupt and FDR changed a few words in the trading with the enemy act of 1917 and made every American an 'enemy of the state, an enemy combatant and under penalty of prison and massive fines made them turn in their gold (which is real money) and turned it over to the bankers in change for debt notes. To add further insult to injury, our labor was pledged as surety against the debt which is why the robber barons agreed to give the traitorous FDR an extension of credit for the 'New Deal"........

Sorry Dale I do not do delusional history.

Have fun in the dungeons and dragons.

 

[Dale Smith]

Hoover did not provide any serious relief until 1931 and even then he only created "the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts, this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty."

Then Congress "pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief."

Hoover did not authorise any significant spending until 1932 as the election neared and he could see the consequence of his economic failures.

Too little too late.

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

"The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.

Hoover also approved substantial farm subsidy increases, eased requirements for the issuing of Federal Reserve notes and established the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to support mortgages. In an attempt to pay for the new programs, Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, hiked corporate tax rates and increased the top personal tax rate from 25 to 63 percent."

FDR ran against Hoover accusing him of out of control government spending! Do you REALLY want to argue American history with a American who majored in history?

Yes as I said in my previous post, 1932 three years into the depression and after Hoover had resisted all calls for three years.

It is not until the election that he changed course, too little too late.

"Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided $375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February 1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes. "

" As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. "

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

Interesting...so did you want to take a crack at explaining why FDR accused Hoover of out of control spending when he was running against him?

Because FDR was a diabolical bastard when it came to politics and winning power. He would say what ever it takes to win. Even his closest political confidents stated "no one really knows him."

I do not even think Eleanor even knew him.

I am defending stimulus as a measure in a deflationary economic collapse, not FDR's personality.

You're defending a "myth", Jake! You still haven't explained how the US came back from the 1920 recession without the use of huge government stimulus programs. Care to address that?

I have explained it, read above. A more apt historical comparison is a global collapse such the depression in the Grant Presidency which I detailed.

The 20s recession was due to the end of the war which saw sharp reductions in demand for manufacturing and returning troops being added to the labour pool, added to that came the Spanish flu, germane to our own times.

Once again we had a lax, hands off President, Wilson this time.

Indeed even free market advocate Milton Friedman argued the recession of 1920–1921 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did the opposite of stimulus and actually caused it.

And indeed after World War Two, where the US could have experienced the same problem the US did not, because Truman had learned the lesson of contracting stimulus or monetary policy after a war too sharply, too quickly and that combined with the demands of the Cold War on government spending into the economy and manufacturing capacity witnessed phenomenal economic growth.

We saw phenomenal economic growth following WWII because the other great economic powers were devastated by the war! American industry was not. Government spending isn't what drove that economic growth...we were the only game in town!

It did, Cold War demands, after a short period of contraction, saw the government inject waves of money into the economy, the Marshall Plan too which as we all know rebuilt Europe and Japan saw contract after contract go to American firms in the most massive US tax dollar sponsored economic reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan.

Had US tax dollar not been used to reconstruct these economies the US would not have had the markets in Europe or Japan for a very long time.

By the way shortly there after the Korean War did not hurt, that war supercharged the Japanese economy.

You are a fucking idiot, the great Depression was artificially created because the robber barons behind the federal reserve tossed out the line of cheap money that had a provision of a "margin call" where those loans (extended by credit out of nothing of an intrinsic value) could be called in at any time. The banking oligarchs pulled out of the market when it was at it's highest and took their profits then did a margin call. The people then ran to the banks to pull out their money which didn't have every depositor's money and the market crashed. The robber barons then bought up stocks for pennies on the dollars and bought banks unaffiliated with the fed. In 1933, USA.INC went bankrupt and FDR changed a few words in the trading with the enemy act of 1917 and made every American an 'enemy of the state, an enemy combatant and under penalty of prison and massive fines made them turn in their gold (which is real money) and turned it over to the bankers in change for debt notes. To add further insult to injury, our labor was pledged as surety against the debt which is why the robber barons agreed to give the traitorous FDR an extension of credit for the 'New Deal"........

Sorry Dale I do not do delusional history.

Have fun in the dungeons and dragons.

I know more than you, troll........

 

[Oldestyle]

Hoover did not provide any serious relief until 1931 and even then he only created "the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts, this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty."

Then Congress "pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief."

Hoover did not authorise any significant spending until 1932 as the election neared and he could see the consequence of his economic failures.

Too little too late.

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

"The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.

Hoover also approved substantial farm subsidy increases, eased requirements for the issuing of Federal Reserve notes and established the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to support mortgages. In an attempt to pay for the new programs, Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, hiked corporate tax rates and increased the top personal tax rate from 25 to 63 percent."

FDR ran against Hoover accusing him of out of control government spending! Do you REALLY want to argue American history with a American who majored in history?

Yes as I said in my previous post, 1932 three years into the depression and after Hoover had resisted all calls for three years.

It is not until the election that he changed course, too little too late.

"Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided $375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February 1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes. "

" As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. "

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

Interesting...so did you want to take a crack at explaining why FDR accused Hoover of out of control spending when he was running against him?

Because FDR was a diabolical bastard when it came to politics and winning power. He would say what ever it takes to win. Even his closest political confidents stated "no one really knows him."

I do not even think Eleanor even knew him.

I am defending stimulus as a measure in a deflationary economic collapse, not FDR's personality.

You're defending a "myth", Jake! You still haven't explained how the US came back from the 1920 recession without the use of huge government stimulus programs. Care to address that?

I have explained it, read above. A more apt historical comparison is a global collapse such the depression in the Grant Presidency which I detailed.

The 20s recession was due to the end of the war which saw sharp reductions in demand for manufacturing and returning troops being added to the labour pool, added to that came the Spanish flu, germane to our own times.

Once again we had a lax, hands off President, Wilson this time.

Indeed even free market advocate Milton Friedman argued the recession of 1920–1921 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did the opposite of stimulus and actually caused it.

And indeed after World War Two, where the US could have experienced the same problem the US did not, because Truman had learned the lesson of contracting stimulus or monetary policy after a war too sharply, too quickly and that combined with the demands of the Cold War on government spending into the economy and manufacturing capacity witnessed phenomenal economic growth.

We saw phenomenal economic growth following WWII because the other great economic powers were devastated by the war! American industry was not. Government spending isn't what drove that economic growth...we were the only game in town!

It did, Cold War demands, after a short period of contraction, saw the government inject waves of money into the economy, the Marshall Plan too which as we all know rebuilt Europe and Japan saw contract after contract go to American firms in the most massive US tax dollar sponsored economic reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan.

Had US tax dollar not been used to reconstruct these economies the US would have had nor markets there for a very long time.

Of course contracts went to American firms! As I just pointed out...we were the only game in town! The infrastructure of Great Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union and Japan were smoldering shells. The US economy boomed because we had an intact infrastructure. It would continue to boom for the next twenty years and then slow as the rest of the world recovered!

And because American tax dollars were used in Cold War military production and to rebuild the very nations and markets in Western Europe and Japan that our manufacturing capacity then sold in.

US tax money created the demand.

The demand was there with or without US tax dollars, Jake! The big question following WWII was whether that demand was going to be met by US intervention or by Communist expansion. That was why the Marshall Plan was passed.

No it was not, Europe was in complete ruin as was Japan, the Marshall Plan (US tax money) lifted them up in quick time.

Indeed one of the ironies of history is our ally, Great Britain did not receive significant post war American tax investment and took much longer than Germany and Western Europe to economically recover.

The Marshall Plan itself was both an economic and foreign policy master stroke.

Of course the expansion of Soviet Power was a factor and the realisation markets, the private sector could not revive Western Europe but only massive US tax spending could both saw those nations consolidate behind US occupation and power but also provided the US with the greatest global market access American companies had ever enjoyed.

Your own post points out that our tax dollars were being spent not to create markets for our products, Jake but that we spent that money to create a buffer against the spread of communism. What else explains why we didn't pour money into Great Britain? Western Europe would have revived without massive US tax spending...the question is...would it have remained predominantly Democratic in nature or would it have turned Socialist or Communist?

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Hoover did not provide any serious relief until 1931 and even then he only created "the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts, this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty."

Then Congress "pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief."

Hoover did not authorise any significant spending until 1932 as the election neared and he could see the consequence of his economic failures.

Too little too late.

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

"The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.

Hoover also approved substantial farm subsidy increases, eased requirements for the issuing of Federal Reserve notes and established the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to support mortgages. In an attempt to pay for the new programs, Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, hiked corporate tax rates and increased the top personal tax rate from 25 to 63 percent."

FDR ran against Hoover accusing him of out of control government spending! Do you REALLY want to argue American history with a American who majored in history?

Yes as I said in my previous post, 1932 three years into the depression and after Hoover had resisted all calls for three years.

It is not until the election that he changed course, too little too late.

"Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided $375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February 1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes. "

" As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. "

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

Interesting...so did you want to take a crack at explaining why FDR accused Hoover of out of control spending when he was running against him?

Because FDR was a diabolical bastard when it came to politics and winning power. He would say what ever it takes to win. Even his closest political confidents stated "no one really knows him."

I do not even think Eleanor even knew him.

I am defending stimulus as a measure in a deflationary economic collapse, not FDR's personality.

You're defending a "myth", Jake! You still haven't explained how the US came back from the 1920 recession without the use of huge government stimulus programs. Care to address that?

I have explained it, read above. A more apt historical comparison is a global collapse such the depression in the Grant Presidency which I detailed.

The 20s recession was due to the end of the war which saw sharp reductions in demand for manufacturing and returning troops being added to the labour pool, added to that came the Spanish flu, germane to our own times.

Once again we had a lax, hands off President, Wilson this time.

Indeed even free market advocate Milton Friedman argued the recession of 1920–1921 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did the opposite of stimulus and actually caused it.

And indeed after World War Two, where the US could have experienced the same problem the US did not, because Truman had learned the lesson of contracting stimulus or monetary policy after a war too sharply, too quickly and that combined with the demands of the Cold War on government spending into the economy and manufacturing capacity witnessed phenomenal economic growth.

We saw phenomenal economic growth following WWII because the other great economic powers were devastated by the war! American industry was not. Government spending isn't what drove that economic growth...we were the only game in town!

It did, Cold War demands, after a short period of contraction, saw the government inject waves of money into the economy, the Marshall Plan too which as we all know rebuilt Europe and Japan saw contract after contract go to American firms in the most massive US tax dollar sponsored economic reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan.

Had US tax dollar not been used to reconstruct these economies the US would have had nor markets there for a very long time.

Of course contracts went to American firms! As I just pointed out...we were the only game in town! The infrastructure of Great Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union and Japan were smoldering shells. The US economy boomed because we had an intact infrastructure. It would continue to boom for the next twenty years and then slow as the rest of the world recovered!

And because American tax dollars were used in Cold War military production and to rebuild the very nations and markets in Western Europe and Japan that our manufacturing capacity then sold in.

US tax money created the demand.

The demand was there with or without US tax dollars, Jake! The big question following WWII was whether that demand was going to be met by US intervention or by Communist expansion. That was why the Marshall Plan was passed.

No it was not, Europe was in complete ruin as was Japan, the Marshall Plan (US tax money) lifted them up in quick time.

Indeed one of the ironies of history is our ally, Great Britain did not receive significant post war American tax investment and took much longer than Germany and Western Europe to economically recover.

The Marshall Plan itself was both an economic and foreign policy master stroke.

Of course the expansion of Soviet Power was a factor and the realisation markets, the private sector could not revive Western Europe but only massive US tax spending could both saw those nations consolidate behind US occupation and power but also provided the US with the greatest global market access American companies had ever enjoyed.

Your own post points out that our tax dollars were being spent not to create markets for our products, Jake but that we spent that money to create a buffer against the spread of communism. What else explains why we didn't pour money into Great Britain? Western Europe would have revived without massive US tax spending...the question is...would it have remained predominantly Democratic in nature or would it have turned Socialist or Communist?

Let me clarify your confusion, the USA used tax dollars (and private sector spending on the back of it) to rebuild Western Europe and Japan economically both to provide stability there, because there is no political stability without economic stability and to provide markets which would not have existed for a very long time otherwise.

Without this massive spending Western Europe would have taken a much longer time to recover and some of the nations may have tipped to the extreme ideology of communism. In point in Italy and France were the various communist parties were large and recruiting off the economic devastation caused by the war.



All empires, and the US is an empire, integrate political with economic goals.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Oldestyle, it is a very good discussion though.

There is always, always, and all of us must remember this, an element of human subjectivity in history and yes economics too.


Neither are a hard science and though we must pursue them with evidence, an honest search for truth our personal opinions and lives will colour that evidence.

This is human nature.

 

[Markle]

Oh yes, all the media is lying, conservative, liberal, long established business journals, they are all lying.

Cult talk.

Trump's Atlantic City casino never got going really before he wrecked the place and ran with millions he awarded himself, by his own admission.


And it is over and over again, (he even ripped off the contractor who renovated the famous Central Park ice skating ring) the same story, the trail of evidence is clear, bankruptcies, leaving contractors, workers business partners high dry while he protects his loot and then tells the IRS he made no profit at all.

Fraud, legal suits to not pay up, shady dealings, bankruptcies.

Donald Trump’s history of corruption: a comprehensive review

His history of abusing power and betraying trust is deeply worrying for how he’d govern.

www.vox.com

LOL! Those are all cute stories but they come from the Liberal Lying media which hates Trump and anyone who does not agree with them politically. They spewed the same venom and lies at
George Bush Sr, Richard Nixon and GW Bush. Hey, genius! When you make accusations, it helps to support them with evidence. If you don't , nobody will believe you.

Yes that is the cult chant, anything that contradicts the leader from any source be it media or science or life time experts in their fields are lying.


A cultivated ignorance, almost a glorification of it is one of the lasting legacies of the Trump Presidency.

A lie? Democrats, with the complicity of their media, lied for over five years about collusion between Russia and President Trump. As you know, that has been proven to be an irrefutable lie. Scores of others.

 

[Oldestyle]

Oldestyle, it is a very good discussion though.

There is always, always, and all of us must remember this, an element of human subjectivity in history and yes economics too.


Neither are a hard science and though we must pursue them with evidence, an honest search for truth our personal opinions and lives will colour that evidence.

This is human nature.

When you're making that "search", Jake? Try a starting point where you don't accept what you've been taught about FDR and The Great Depression as a given. For most he is the liberal icon who brought us out of a really bad recession and saved the country! For others he was a President whose policies extended a recession and turned it into The Great Depression. An Economics class with Thomas Sowell at Amherst College turned me into the latter.

 

[Oldestyle]

Hoover did not provide any serious relief until 1931 and even then he only created "the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts, this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty."

Then Congress "pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief."

Hoover did not authorise any significant spending until 1932 as the election neared and he could see the consequence of his economic failures.

Too little too late.

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

"The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.

Hoover also approved substantial farm subsidy increases, eased requirements for the issuing of Federal Reserve notes and established the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to support mortgages. In an attempt to pay for the new programs, Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, hiked corporate tax rates and increased the top personal tax rate from 25 to 63 percent."

FDR ran against Hoover accusing him of out of control government spending! Do you REALLY want to argue American history with a American who majored in history?

Yes as I said in my previous post, 1932 three years into the depression and after Hoover had resisted all calls for three years.

It is not until the election that he changed course, too little too late.

"Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided $375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February 1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes. "

" As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. "

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

Interesting...so did you want to take a crack at explaining why FDR accused Hoover of out of control spending when he was running against him?

Because FDR was a diabolical bastard when it came to politics and winning power. He would say what ever it takes to win. Even his closest political confidents stated "no one really knows him."

I do not even think Eleanor even knew him.

I am defending stimulus as a measure in a deflationary economic collapse, not FDR's personality.

You're defending a "myth", Jake! You still haven't explained how the US came back from the 1920 recession without the use of huge government stimulus programs. Care to address that?

I have explained it, read above. A more apt historical comparison is a global collapse such the depression in the Grant Presidency which I detailed.

The 20s recession was due to the end of the war which saw sharp reductions in demand for manufacturing and returning troops being added to the labour pool, added to that came the Spanish flu, germane to our own times.

Once again we had a lax, hands off President, Wilson this time.

Indeed even free market advocate Milton Friedman argued the recession of 1920–1921 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did the opposite of stimulus and actually caused it.

And indeed after World War Two, where the US could have experienced the same problem the US did not, because Truman had learned the lesson of contracting stimulus or monetary policy after a war too sharply, too quickly and that combined with the demands of the Cold War on government spending into the economy and manufacturing capacity witnessed phenomenal economic growth.

We saw phenomenal economic growth following WWII because the other great economic powers were devastated by the war! American industry was not. Government spending isn't what drove that economic growth...we were the only game in town!

It did, Cold War demands, after a short period of contraction, saw the government inject waves of money into the economy, the Marshall Plan too which as we all know rebuilt Europe and Japan saw contract after contract go to American firms in the most massive US tax dollar sponsored economic reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan.

Had US tax dollar not been used to reconstruct these economies the US would have had nor markets there for a very long time.

Of course contracts went to American firms! As I just pointed out...we were the only game in town! The infrastructure of Great Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union and Japan were smoldering shells. The US economy boomed because we had an intact infrastructure. It would continue to boom for the next twenty years and then slow as the rest of the world recovered!

And because American tax dollars were used in Cold War military production and to rebuild the very nations and markets in Western Europe and Japan that our manufacturing capacity then sold in.

US tax money created the demand.

The demand was there with or without US tax dollars, Jake! The big question following WWII was whether that demand was going to be met by US intervention or by Communist expansion. That was why the Marshall Plan was passed.

No it was not, Europe was in complete ruin as was Japan, the Marshall Plan (US tax money) lifted them up in quick time.

Indeed one of the ironies of history is our ally, Great Britain did not receive significant post war American tax investment and took much longer than Germany and Western Europe to economically recover.

The Marshall Plan itself was both an economic and foreign policy master stroke.

Of course the expansion of Soviet Power was a factor and the realisation markets, the private sector could not revive Western Europe but only massive US tax spending could both saw those nations consolidate behind US occupation and power but also provided the US with the greatest global market access American companies had ever enjoyed.

Your own post points out that our tax dollars were being spent not to create markets for our products, Jake but that we spent that money to create a buffer against the spread of communism. What else explains why we didn't pour money into Great Britain? Western Europe would have revived without massive US tax spending...the question is...would it have remained predominantly Democratic in nature or would it have turned Socialist or Communist?

Let me clarify your confusion, the USA used tax dollars (and private sector spending on the back of it) to rebuild Western Europe and Japan economically both to provide stability there, because there is no political stability without economic stability and to provide markets which would not have existed for a very long time otherwise.

Without this massive spending Western Europe would have taken a much longer time to recover and some of the nations may have tipped to the extreme ideology of communism. In point in Italy and France were the various communist parties were large and recruiting off the economic devastation caused by the war.



All empires, and the US is an empire, integrate political with economic goals.

Simple question for you, Jake! Which do you think was of paramount importance when those American politicians sat around a table and discussed the Marshall Plan? Do you think they made that commitment to provide markets for American products...or do you think they did so because they were scared to death of Communism spreading unchecked if they didn't?

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Hoover did not provide any serious relief until 1931 and even then he only created "the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts, this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty."

Then Congress "pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief."

Hoover did not authorise any significant spending until 1932 as the election neared and he could see the consequence of his economic failures.

Too little too late.

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

"The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.

Hoover also approved substantial farm subsidy increases, eased requirements for the issuing of Federal Reserve notes and established the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to support mortgages. In an attempt to pay for the new programs, Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, hiked corporate tax rates and increased the top personal tax rate from 25 to 63 percent."

FDR ran against Hoover accusing him of out of control government spending! Do you REALLY want to argue American history with a American who majored in history?

Yes as I said in my previous post, 1932 three years into the depression and after Hoover had resisted all calls for three years.

It is not until the election that he changed course, too little too late.

"Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided $375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February 1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes. "

" As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. "

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

Interesting...so did you want to take a crack at explaining why FDR accused Hoover of out of control spending when he was running against him?

Because FDR was a diabolical bastard when it came to politics and winning power. He would say what ever it takes to win. Even his closest political confidents stated "no one really knows him."

I do not even think Eleanor even knew him.

I am defending stimulus as a measure in a deflationary economic collapse, not FDR's personality.

You're defending a "myth", Jake! You still haven't explained how the US came back from the 1920 recession without the use of huge government stimulus programs. Care to address that?

I have explained it, read above. A more apt historical comparison is a global collapse such the depression in the Grant Presidency which I detailed.

The 20s recession was due to the end of the war which saw sharp reductions in demand for manufacturing and returning troops being added to the labour pool, added to that came the Spanish flu, germane to our own times.

Once again we had a lax, hands off President, Wilson this time.

Indeed even free market advocate Milton Friedman argued the recession of 1920–1921 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did the opposite of stimulus and actually caused it.

And indeed after World War Two, where the US could have experienced the same problem the US did not, because Truman had learned the lesson of contracting stimulus or monetary policy after a war too sharply, too quickly and that combined with the demands of the Cold War on government spending into the economy and manufacturing capacity witnessed phenomenal economic growth.

We saw phenomenal economic growth following WWII because the other great economic powers were devastated by the war! American industry was not. Government spending isn't what drove that economic growth...we were the only game in town!

It did, Cold War demands, after a short period of contraction, saw the government inject waves of money into the economy, the Marshall Plan too which as we all know rebuilt Europe and Japan saw contract after contract go to American firms in the most massive US tax dollar sponsored economic reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan.

Had US tax dollar not been used to reconstruct these economies the US would have had nor markets there for a very long time.

Of course contracts went to American firms! As I just pointed out...we were the only game in town! The infrastructure of Great Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union and Japan were smoldering shells. The US economy boomed because we had an intact infrastructure. It would continue to boom for the next twenty years and then slow as the rest of the world recovered!

And because American tax dollars were used in Cold War military production and to rebuild the very nations and markets in Western Europe and Japan that our manufacturing capacity then sold in.

US tax money created the demand.

The demand was there with or without US tax dollars, Jake! The big question following WWII was whether that demand was going to be met by US intervention or by Communist expansion. That was why the Marshall Plan was passed.

No it was not, Europe was in complete ruin as was Japan, the Marshall Plan (US tax money) lifted them up in quick time.

Indeed one of the ironies of history is our ally, Great Britain did not receive significant post war American tax investment and took much longer than Germany and Western Europe to economically recover.

The Marshall Plan itself was both an economic and foreign policy master stroke.

Of course the expansion of Soviet Power was a factor and the realisation markets, the private sector could not revive Western Europe but only massive US tax spending could both saw those nations consolidate behind US occupation and power but also provided the US with the greatest global market access American companies had ever enjoyed.

Your own post points out that our tax dollars were being spent not to create markets for our products, Jake but that we spent that money to create a buffer against the spread of communism. What else explains why we didn't pour money into Great Britain? Western Europe would have revived without massive US tax spending...the question is...would it have remained predominantly Democratic in nature or would it have turned Socialist or Communist?

Let me clarify your confusion, the USA used tax dollars (and private sector spending on the back of it) to rebuild Western Europe and Japan economically both to provide stability there, because there is no political stability without economic stability and to provide markets which would not have existed for a very long time otherwise.

Without this massive spending Western Europe would have taken a much longer time to recover and some of the nations may have tipped to the extreme ideology of communism. In point in Italy and France were the various communist parties were large and recruiting off the economic devastation caused by the war.



All empires, and the US is an empire, integrate political with economic goals.

Simple question for you, Jake! Which do you think was of paramount importance when those American politicians sat around a table and discussed the Marshall Plan? Do you think they made that commitment to provide markets for American products...or do you think they did so because they were scared to death of Communism spreading unchecked if they didn't?

They made it clear they thought the two goals were completely intertwined.


Now American politicians love to highlight the idealistic and keep national self interest a hush hush, but both are always intertwined. We know the Marshall plan both solidified American dominance in Western Europe both politically built markets that saw America economically thrive for decades. It was not just economic rebuilding with US tax dollars, there were all sorts of trade integration demands in the details.

The two concepts are actually one concept.


They were giants.

Now you Americans are stuck with an Orange narcissistic half wit and a paint by numbers life long politician, the age of American giants is over.

But then any nation reflects the generation that makes it.

 

[Markle]

Trump used it as a tool to move his liabilities to his contractors, smaller creditors and not pay his workers time and time again.

A good businessman builds business that last, grow, and lift up everyone connected with it.

That's just foolish and desperate. Your TDS is running rampage!

At any one time, President Trump owns part or all of at least 500 entities. How many do you think over 50+ years? During all that time, six have gone bankrupt. Dang, that's incredibly great! So grow up.

Have you heard of the legendary baseball pitcher, Babe Ruth? For many years he held the record for strike-outs during his career with 1,330! You might remember him for the number of home runs in a season of 60 that stood for decades. In 1962 his record for strike-outs for someone else you might remember, Mickey Mantle.

Maybe you get the point, but I doubt it!

 

[Markle]

Nice try, he borrowed too much and did not cost profit expectations competently and then stiffed everyone around him. This has been widely known and investigated long before he become President.

And he has done it time and time again.

What the heck are you talking about and do you have a point?

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Hoover did not provide any serious relief until 1931 and even then he only created "the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts, this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty."

Then Congress "pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief."

Hoover did not authorise any significant spending until 1932 as the election neared and he could see the consequence of his economic failures.

Too little too late.

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

"The new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, established in January 1932, lent tax dollars to bail out American banks and businesses. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act, enacted in July 1932, broadened the agency’s lending power to include financing state and local public works projects.

Hoover also approved substantial farm subsidy increases, eased requirements for the issuing of Federal Reserve notes and established the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to support mortgages. In an attempt to pay for the new programs, Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, hiked corporate tax rates and increased the top personal tax rate from 25 to 63 percent."

FDR ran against Hoover accusing him of out of control government spending! Do you REALLY want to argue American history with a American who majored in history?

Yes as I said in my previous post, 1932 three years into the depression and after Hoover had resisted all calls for three years.

It is not until the election that he changed course, too little too late.

"Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided $375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February 1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes. "

" As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. "

President Hoover’s Response | US History II (OS Collection)

courses.lumenlearning.com

Interesting...so did you want to take a crack at explaining why FDR accused Hoover of out of control spending when he was running against him?

Because FDR was a diabolical bastard when it came to politics and winning power. He would say what ever it takes to win. Even his closest political confidents stated "no one really knows him."

I do not even think Eleanor even knew him.

I am defending stimulus as a measure in a deflationary economic collapse, not FDR's personality.

You're defending a "myth", Jake! You still haven't explained how the US came back from the 1920 recession without the use of huge government stimulus programs. Care to address that?

I have explained it, read above. A more apt historical comparison is a global collapse such the depression in the Grant Presidency which I detailed.

The 20s recession was due to the end of the war which saw sharp reductions in demand for manufacturing and returning troops being added to the labour pool, added to that came the Spanish flu, germane to our own times.

Once again we had a lax, hands off President, Wilson this time.

Indeed even free market advocate Milton Friedman argued the recession of 1920–1921 was the result of an unnecessary contractionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did the opposite of stimulus and actually caused it.

And indeed after World War Two, where the US could have experienced the same problem the US did not, because Truman had learned the lesson of contracting stimulus or monetary policy after a war too sharply, too quickly and that combined with the demands of the Cold War on government spending into the economy and manufacturing capacity witnessed phenomenal economic growth.

We saw phenomenal economic growth following WWII because the other great economic powers were devastated by the war! American industry was not. Government spending isn't what drove that economic growth...we were the only game in town!

It did, Cold War demands, after a short period of contraction, saw the government inject waves of money into the economy, the Marshall Plan too which as we all know rebuilt Europe and Japan saw contract after contract go to American firms in the most massive US tax dollar sponsored economic reconstruction in Western Europe and Japan.

Had US tax dollar not been used to reconstruct these economies the US would have had nor markets there for a very long time.

Of course contracts went to American firms! As I just pointed out...we were the only game in town! The infrastructure of Great Britain, France, Germany, the Soviet Union and Japan were smoldering shells. The US economy boomed because we had an intact infrastructure. It would continue to boom for the next twenty years and then slow as the rest of the world recovered!

And because American tax dollars were used in Cold War military production and to rebuild the very nations and markets in Western Europe and Japan that our manufacturing capacity then sold in.

US tax money created the demand.

The demand was there with or without US tax dollars, Jake! The big question following WWII was whether that demand was going to be met by US intervention or by Communist expansion. That was why the Marshall Plan was passed.

No it was not, Europe was in complete ruin as was Japan, the Marshall Plan (US tax money) lifted them up in quick time.

Indeed one of the ironies of history is our ally, Great Britain did not receive significant post war American tax investment and took much longer than Germany and Western Europe to economically recover.

The Marshall Plan itself was both an economic and foreign policy master stroke.

Of course the expansion of Soviet Power was a factor and the realisation markets, the private sector could not revive Western Europe but only massive US tax spending could both saw those nations consolidate behind US occupation and power but also provided the US with the greatest global market access American companies had ever enjoyed.

Your own post points out that our tax dollars were being spent not to create markets for our products, Jake but that we spent that money to create a buffer against the spread of communism. What else explains why we didn't pour money into Great Britain? Western Europe would have revived without massive US tax spending...the question is...would it have remained predominantly Democratic in nature or would it have turned Socialist or Communist?

Let me clarify your confusion, the USA used tax dollars (and private sector spending on the back of it) to rebuild Western Europe and Japan economically both to provide stability there, because there is no political stability without economic stability and to provide markets which would not have existed for a very long time otherwise.

Without this massive spending Western Europe would have taken a much longer time to recover and some of the nations may have tipped to the extreme ideology of communism. In point in Italy and France were the various communist parties were large and recruiting off the economic devastation caused by the war.



All empires, and the US is an empire, integrate political with economic goals.

Simple question for you, Jake! Which do you think was of paramount importance when those American politicians sat around a table and discussed the Marshall Plan? Do you think they made that commitment to provide markets for American products...or do you think they did so because they were scared to death of Communism spreading unchecked if they didn't?

They are on record, you can read what they thought. They both wrote why they did what they did and there are plenty of histories that can inform you too.

Try reading what Marshall and Truman wrote about it. They were visionary thinkers both economic and political. It is integrated. The political and economic always are.

They were giants.

Now you Americans are stuck with an Orange narcissistic half wit and a paint by numbers life long politician, the age of American giants is over.

But then any nation reflects the generation that makes it.

Nice try, he borrowed too much and did not cost profit expectations competently and then stiffed everyone around him. This has been widely known and investigated long before he become President.

And he has done it time and time again.

What the heck are you talking about and do you have a point?

His entire business life, even now, is borrowing from others, they take the risk, when and if it fails he diverts funds to himself and they take the fall.

He is even doing it now with his lost Presidency, begging for donations to help fight his delusionary quest to stay in power, and as with his business ventures most of the money will go into his personal accounts and not to that fight.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Oldestyle, it is a very good discussion though.

There is always, always, and all of us must remember this, an element of human subjectivity in history and yes economics too.


Neither are a hard science and though we must pursue them with evidence, an honest search for truth our personal opinions and lives will colour that evidence.

This is human nature.

When you're making that "search", Jake? Try a starting point where you don't accept what you've been taught about FDR and The Great Depression as a given. For most he is the liberal icon who brought us out of a really bad recession and saved the country! For others he was a President whose policies extended a recession and turned it into The Great Depression. An Economics class with Thomas Sowell at Amherst College turned me into the latter.

As for Sowell I will read him, but word of warning, you will never understand the grand scope of history following just one economic guru or historian, you have to contrast and compare as many as you can and take none as the ultimate authority.

That is the enlightenment rule.

 

[Markle]

It was not a depression, as I said above it was not caused by massive market collapse and failure but rather war production ending and the opposite of stimulus monetary contraction. They even raised interest rates!

It never need have occurred at all but was caused by monetary contraction. Not every economic down turn needs massive intervention. It is not comparable to the Great Depression or Grant Depression just as a stubbed toe is not life threatening cancer.

Still even here Harding who took over from Wilson raised revenues in 1921 by expanding the tax base considerably at the and reversed the Wilson policy, Harding injecting monetary stimulus into the economy.

He also provided direct relief to the through the states and unemployed with the economic conference and a committee on unemployment.

Are saying that the 1920/21 crash was NOT a depression? That's foolish.

"The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923."

The Forgotten Depression of 1920 | Mises Institute

Popular rhetoric notwithstanding, government cannot be run like a business.

mises.org

 

[Markle]

Just as the GFC of 2008 was largely caused by the financial deregulation of Wall Street under President Clinton.

This economic mistakes take time before the eggs laid hatch.

As you know, the exact opposite is what happened. Barney Franks and Chris Dodd kept forcing Fannie and Freddie to make more and more risky sub-par loans. Did you know that Barney Franks's lover at the time was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae whose bonuses increased with the more lo9ans that bought?

As you know, President Bush tried his entire administration to reign in Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats steamrolled him.

For many years the President and his Administration not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years. [Obama advisor, Franklin Raines was CEO of Freddie Mac when they lied about earnings to increase bonuses]

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).

2004
February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04).

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04).

2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05).

2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

· “Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08).

· “[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08).

· “Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08).

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such...

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

 

[Markle]

Jake Winker Frogen

You seem to be misinformed about the Great Depression. Allow me to attempt to enlighten you.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg SullivanAugust 10, 2004
Category: Research

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936.

The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935.

As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.

Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-
LSMS368

Read more:

Newsroom

newsroom.ucla.edu

https://www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7-years-ucla-economists-calculate/