How is austerity doing in Europe

[Auteur]

I've taken plenty of economic classes, asshole. And a predominant point is that government should only spend what it needs to spend and upon what the private sector is unwilling to spend upon. Otherwise, it's called 'waste.' You should take an economics class instead of pretending that you have taken them.

Right. I think you are economically illiterate. But, perhaps you can suggest when cutting gov spending has ever helped out economy when we have had high unemployment.

You ever hear of the New Deal? Government tried to spend their way out of The Great Depression and immensely prolonged the suffering. You're clearly unaware or unwilling to accept that government has largely only created many artificial costs to doing business. They are the epitome of waste. My guess is your govt. desk jockey who is just more than happy to suck at the teet. That's fine for you. But, the rest of us have to live in the real world.

I have to say again how amazed I am by the sort of ultra-right rhetoric that floats around the US these days. The irony with this statement is that FDR probably saved capitalism for all those wheeler-dealer businessmen who were so outraged by the thought of some mild government intervention in the economy. The great depression was settling into a permanent state in the US, and could have remained for years if not for the New Deal, and later the militarization that followed Pearl Harbour. Other nations had responded with social measures faster than the US, and as a consequence were in better shape around the time of the beginning of WW2. The US lagged as a result of fierce opposition to FDR's social programs. If the state of affairs that existed after 1929 were allowed to fester, a strong backlash, even revolution may have occurred, leaving our outraged businessmen in a far less comfortable position.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Right. I think you are economically illiterate. But, perhaps you can suggest when cutting gov spending has ever helped out economy when we have had high unemployment.

You ever hear of the New Deal? Government tried to spend their way out of The Great Depression and immensely prolonged the suffering. You're clearly unaware or unwilling to accept that government has largely only created many artificial costs to doing business. They are the epitome of waste. My guess is your govt. desk jockey who is just more than happy to suck at the teet. That's fine for you. But, the rest of us have to live in the real world.

Uh, right. The great republican depression of 1929. You seem to be only mildly familiar with it. Here is the actual fact, me boy. First, under repub presidents, from '28 to March 33, the unemployment rate went from under 3% to over 24%. And it was still rising. And fast when fdr was inaugurated that march. Those great repub presidents did just as you would have wanted them to do: Nothing. Worked really well, didn't it. An increase in the ue rate of over 21%. Perfect policy. So, after inauguration in march of 1933, fdr started pushing programs to stop the hemorrhaging. And, me boy, by the end of his first year, his stimulus programs and implementation of the prior president's stimulus program, the ue rate turned around. And it went down, from 25% to 14% in 4 years. In 37, fdr incorrectly decided to stop stimulus spending and see how things would do going forward. And, me boy, embracing the republican congress' wishes, he did indeed stop stimulus spending. And, of course, the result was that the ue rate went up, by 5 points in '38. Seeing this, fdr started spending again, in earnest. And the result was predictable. The ue rate started back down. To 14 % in 1940, and by the time the US entered the war, to 9%. The war, of course, was the great stimulus, and drove ue and production, ending any remaining talk of the depression.

So, I guess if you like high ue rates, doing nothing in the face of high ue rates is a great idea. Is that what you like, me boy? High ue rates???

You know, you should give up guessing what folks did with their life. I was in bus from college until i retired a couple years ago. Never worked for the gov. So, at guessing you loose, me poor ignorant con. Thing is, I like the truth. Not fantasy, like you seem to want to believe in.

You say you took many econ classes?? Where did you go to school??? Perhaps internet college at the school of bat shit crazy con web sites?? Only they teach the version of the great depression you like to believe in. Though there is Liberty University........

You was in a bus from college until you retired? Is English your first language?

There are various reasons for the Depression hitting. Republicans then, just like today were complicit in the downfall. I never once told you I gave two shits about the Republicrats. That's your nonsense.

If FDR's policy's were so great and made such a great impact, then why did the unemployment jump from 16.9 to 19.0 percent for 36 to 38? (As an aside, at least they were keeping more honest stats back then. Unemployment is more like 25 to 30 percent right now as we are reliving an FDR nightmare).

And why did it take a war for big govt. to decide it was in the American people's interest to knock 10 percent off the unemployment number? The reality is, that's what you get when the government treats people like cogs instead of being of and for the people.

And I don't divulge personal info online. But, I can tell you I've taken a few econ courses and govt. waste is a very basic concept that is taught. Deluded utopians like yourself cherrypick circumstantial data points and abstract theories, instead of regarding tried and proven principles.

 

[Auteur]

If FDR's policy's were so great and made such a great impact, then why did the unemployment jump from 16.9 to 19.0 percent for 36 to 38? (As an aside, at least they were keeping more honest stats back then. Unemployment is more like 25 to 30 percent right now as we are reliving an FDR nightmare).

This has already been answered for you.

And why did it take a war for big govt. to decide it was in the American people's interest to knock 10 percent off the unemployment number? The reality is, that's what you get when the government treats people like cogs instead of being of and for the people.

You are nothing if not full of irony Mr Gatsby. Stop and think for a moment. What would the most far left economic policy you could think of look like? Massive government intervention in the economy, wage and price controls, rationing of materials, millions placed on the federal payroll, borrowing without limit......yes, you get the picture.

War was forced on the US, yet from an economic perspective, it validated FDRs policies, and made a mockery of conservative principles, ie: government does have a critical role to play in the economy, and policies can be used to prevent disasters like the depression.

And I don't divulge personal info online. But, I can tell you I've taken a few econ courses and govt. waste is a very basic concept that is taught. Deluded utopians like yourself cherrypick circumstantial data points and abstract theories, instead of regarding tried and proven principles.

Here is one small "proven fact" for you. The movement away from regulation and the spirit of FDR's reforms, and towards your libertarian philosophy, caused the meltdown of 2008, which nearly brought down the world economy. The "waste" caused by the so called free market has been variously calculated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. Just one historical event among many. Doesn't that make you want to pull that picture of Ron Paul down from the mantle? It should.

 

[Rshermr]

You ever hear of the New Deal? Government tried to spend their way out of The Great Depression and immensely prolonged the suffering. You're clearly unaware or unwilling to accept that government has largely only created many artificial costs to doing business. They are the epitome of waste. My guess is your govt. desk jockey who is just more than happy to suck at the teet. That's fine for you. But, the rest of us have to live in the real world.

Uh, right. The great republican depression of 1929. You seem to be only mildly familiar with it. Here is the actual fact, me boy. First, under repub presidents, from '28 to March 33, the unemployment rate went from under 3% to over 24%. And it was still rising. And fast when fdr was inaugurated that march. Those great repub presidents did just as you would have wanted them to do: Nothing. Worked really well, didn't it. An increase in the ue rate of over 21%. Perfect policy. So, after inauguration in march of 1933, fdr started pushing programs to stop the hemorrhaging. And, me boy, by the end of his first year, his stimulus programs and implementation of the prior president's stimulus program, the ue rate turned around. And it went down, from 25% to 14% in 4 years. In 37, fdr incorrectly decided to stop stimulus spending and see how things would do going forward. And, me boy, embracing the republican congress' wishes, he did indeed stop stimulus spending. And, of course, the result was that the ue rate went up, by 5 points in '38. Seeing this, fdr started spending again, in earnest. And the result was predictable. The ue rate started back down. To 14 % in 1940, and by the time the US entered the war, to 9%. The war, of course, was the great stimulus, and drove ue and production, ending any remaining talk of the depression.

So, I guess if you like high ue rates, doing nothing in the face of high ue rates is a great idea. Is that what you like, me boy? High ue rates???

You know, you should give up guessing what folks did with their life. I was in bus from college until i retired a couple years ago. Never worked for the gov. So, at guessing you loose, me poor ignorant con. Thing is, I like the truth. Not fantasy, like you seem to want to believe in.

You say you took many econ classes?? Where did you go to school??? Perhaps internet college at the school of bat shit crazy con web sites?? Only they teach the version of the great depression you like to believe in. Though there is Liberty University........

You was in a bus from college until you retired? Is English your first language?

There are various reasons for the Depression hitting. Republicans then, just like today were complicit in the downfall. I never once told you I gave two shits about the Republicrats. That's your nonsense.

If FDR's policy's were so great and made such a great impact, then why did the unemployment jump from 16.9 to 19.0 percent for 36 to 38? (As an aside, at least they were keeping more honest stats back then. Unemployment is more like 25 to 30 percent right now as we are reliving an FDR nightmare).

And why did it take a war for big govt. to decide it was in the American people's interest to knock 10 percent off the unemployment number? The reality is, that's what you get when the government treats people like cogs instead of being of and for the people.

And I don't divulge personal info online. But, I can tell you I've taken a few econ courses and govt. waste is a very basic concept that is taught. Deluded utopians like yourself cherrypick circumstantial data points and abstract theories, instead of regarding tried and proven principles.

Jesus. I hate trying to discuss anything with non feedback organisms like you, dipshit.
I was in bus. That is short for business.
I explained the uptick in the ue rate in '38. If you really paid attention in any of those econ classes you would have some actual understanding of economic history. And republican presidents were not just complicit, they were the complete cause. They OWNED the us economic policies clear through when the depression was at it worst. As in 1933, when fdr took over the cesspool that was the us economy. Again it is simple. UE rate under 3% in '28, to over 24% in march of 1933. Coolidge till March '29, Hoover til March '33. It is really not that hard, me boy.
And, if the war had decreased the ue rate from the time the us entered the war by 10%, we would have then had a NEGATIVE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. You did not need war. The ue rate was going down, except when fdr had his brain fart in '37 that caused the '38 uptick. And was going down again when he started stimulus again. Again, a really simple concept. Taught in pretty much any econ class. Please, educate yourself, look up Stimulus. Look up Keynsian economic theory. Help yourself.
I answered your response already. And you then proved what your major malfunction is by showing that you either did not read what I had written, or are incapable of understanding what I said. So, go back and try reading it again. Best of luck with that.
And, to a person having taken several econ courses, saying that stimulus is an abstract theory is rather interesting. So, you never heard of Keynesian economics???

 

[Misty]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom


"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.*
*
"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."

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.
*
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- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

[Kimura]

"Latvia, feted by fans of austerity as the country-that-can and an example for countries like Greece that can’t, has provided a rare boost to champions of the proposition that pain pays.

Hardship has long been common here — and still is. But in just four years, the country has gone from the European Union’s worst economic disaster zone to a model of what the International Monetary Fund hails as the healing properties of deep budget cuts. Latvia’s economy, after shriveling by more than 20 percent from its peak, grew by about 5 percent last year, making it the best performer in the 27-nation European Union. Its budget deficit is down sharply and exports are soaring.

But in Latvia, where the government laid off a third of its civil servants, slashed wages for the rest and sharply reduced support for hospitals, people mostly accepted the bitter medicine. Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis, who presided over the austerity, was re-elected, not thrown out of office, as many of his counterparts elsewhere have been."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/w...y-and-its-pain-eases.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

First of all, the Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania have been pushed so deeply and violently into debt, we have a situation where whole chunks of their populations are emigrating. They’re fleeing like the zombie apocalypse landed on their front door.

The Latvian economy contracted by 25% and this caused unemployment to shoot up to around 20%. Currently, the last time I looked at the numbers, unemployment is around 14-15%. Where’s the success in that? We have a situation where tens of thousands of people have exited the country looking for better opportunities abroad. This has made horrendous unemployment numbers look somewhat less horrendous.

Last year, for example, Latvia had a budget deficit which was 3.5% of GDP, with trade deficits at 3%. According to sectoral balances, this means that the private savings is at zero, which could go on for many year to come, but isn’t sustainable for more than a few years.

Austerity is a disaster and simply cannot work. It destroys financial assets in the private sector, which has the effect of atrophying labor and capital. We’re seeing this happen in real time across a good portion of the EU and Baltic states.

 

[Rshermr]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom


"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.*
*
"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."

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.
*
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- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Good. You found a single economist who agrees with your agenda. How about the thousands who do not???
Nice try. But you certainly did not prove anything with that piece.

The article that you have found is well known, and is hardly well supported. For instance, wpa jobs are not considered in their analysis.
The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - Salon.com

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom


"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.*
*
"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."

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.
*
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- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Good. You found a single economist who agrees with your agenda. How about the thousands who do not???
Nice try. But you certainly did not prove anything with that piece.

The article that you have found is well known, and is hardly well supported. For instance, wpa jobs are not considered in their analysis.
The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - Salon.com

You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Jesus. I hate trying to discuss anything with non feedback organisms like you, dipshit.
I was in bus. That is short for business.
I explained the uptick in the ue rate in '38. If you really paid attention in any of those econ classes you would have some actual understanding of economic history. And republican presidents were not just complicit, they were the complete cause. They OWNED the us economic policies clear through when the depression was at it worst. As in 1933, when fdr took over the cesspool that was the us economy. Again it is simple. UE rate under 3% in '28, to over 24% in march of 1933. Coolidge till March '29, Hoover til March '33. It is really not that hard, me boy.
And, if the war had decreased the ue rate from the time the us entered the war by 10%, we would have then had a NEGATIVE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. You did not need war. The ue rate was going down, except when fdr had his brain fart in '37 that caused the '38 uptick. And was going down again when he started stimulus again. Again, a really simple concept. Taught in pretty much any econ class. Please, educate yourself, look up Stimulus. Look up Keynsian economic theory. Help yourself.
I answered your response already. And you then proved what your major malfunction is by showing that you either did not read what I had written, or are incapable of understanding what I said. So, go back and try reading it again. Best of luck with that.
And, to a person having taken several econ courses, saying that stimulus is an abstract theory is rather interesting. So, you never heard of Keynesian economics???

First off dickface. If you're going to speak in broken English. Don't draw your ire with me when I don't know what the fuck you're even talking about. Frankly, listening to you speak, I think it's very plausible that you drove a bus.

You did not explain the uptick in 38, asshole. So, go ahead and do that. I don't want to hear this bull shit that that base is covered just because you don't want to regard the point.

Third off, you're a left wing loon. All this it was the Republicans fault and the Dems can do no wrong is bull shit and belies the world we live in. It's funny that you tout that even after I told you I wasn't interested in your us vs. them bull shit. You're nothing but a fucking cheerleader with no actual basic knowledge of how economics works.

And I'm not saying Keynsian economics is abstract. It's actually a precise science (if you can call it that). What I'm saying is morons (like yourself) applications of it is not scientific whatsoever. Even if you primarily subscribe to the spend to get back model, you still have to have proper fiscal management. And what you fail to understand in your zeal to back corrupt forces, is that the government is not setup to give a fuck about whether money is spent correctly and they bulldoze anything in its path.

 

[oldfart]

"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.*
*
"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 UCLA press release is dated August 10, 2004, but there is no citation, link, or mention of the study ever being published. Another summary, however, appeared in the Wall Street Journal five years later:
How Government Prolonged the Depression - WSJ.com
Cole, Harold L. and Ohanian, Lee E. "How Government Prolonged the Depression." Wall Street Journal. February 2, 2009

Needless to say, this apparently unpublished nine-year old study is not the consensus view of economic historians such as Milton Friedman.

 

[oldfart]

You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.

You might want to moderate your language and reconsider presenting yourself as knowledgeable about economists. There are about a dozen posters on this board with graduate degrees in economics, five of which by my count have taught university level economics and three of which are published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to hang with that kind of crowd, you will have to understand the subject matter, make cogent arguments, and lose the attitude.

 

[Auteur]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom


"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.*
*
"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."

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.
*
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- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The very first sentence in your quote gives away the rest. In fact, the depression has been exhaustively studied, and is well understood- by reputable economists anyway, including the money-changer in chief himself, Ben Bernanke, who wrote a book on it.

 

[oldfart]

You know, you should give up guessing what folks did with their life. I was in bus from college until i retired a couple years ago. Never worked for the gov. So, at guessing you loose, me poor ignorant con. Thing is, I like the truth. Not fantasy, like you seem to want to believe in.

You say you took many econ classes?? Where did you go to school??? Perhaps internet college at the school of bat shit crazy con web sites?? Only they teach the version of the great depression you like to believe in. Though there is Liberty University........

And I don't divulge personal info online. But, I can tell you I've taken a few econ courses and govt. waste is a very basic concept that is taught. Deluded utopians like yourself cherrypick circumstantial data points and abstract theories, instead of regarding tried and proven principles.

OK, let's cut to the chase. Nobody has to give out personal IDENTIFYING information on a message board, but when you claim expertise in an area as you have, and that expertise is not reflected in your posts, you are going to get called on it. Your responses to several posters shows no familiarity with either economics or economic history.

For what it's worth, I have taught 21 separate economics courses at university level, served as an expert witness in federal and state courts, published in peer-reviewed journals, and conducted research in economic history. Anyone who bothers to check out my posts will be able to judge my grasp of the literature and the degree of civility I extend when another poster is being serious.

If you had read any of the main works on the Depression such as Friedman and Schwartz, "Monetary History of the United States", Ben Bernanke's 2000 work, "Essays on the Great Depression", or even Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, also in 2000, you would understand how off the wall your cited research was and why it probably couldn't find a publisher.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You know, you should give up guessing what folks did with their life. I was in bus from college until i retired a couple years ago. Never worked for the gov. So, at guessing you loose, me poor ignorant con. Thing is, I like the truth. Not fantasy, like you seem to want to believe in.

You say you took many econ classes?? Where did you go to school??? Perhaps internet college at the school of bat shit crazy con web sites?? Only they teach the version of the great depression you like to believe in. Though there is Liberty University........

And I don't divulge personal info online. But, I can tell you I've taken a few econ courses and govt. waste is a very basic concept that is taught. Deluded utopians like yourself cherrypick circumstantial data points and abstract theories, instead of regarding tried and proven principles.

OK, let's cut to the chase. Nobody has to give out personal IDENTIFYING information on a message board, but when you claim expertise in an area as you have, and that expertise is not reflected in your posts, you are going to get called on it. Your responses to several posters shows no familiarity with either economics or economic history.

For what it's worth, I have taught 21 separate economics courses at university level, served as an expert witness in federal and state courts, published in peer-reviewed journals, and conducted research in economic history. Anyone who bothers to check out my posts will be able to judge my grasp of the literature and the degree of civility I extend when another poster is being serious.

If you had read any of the main works on the Depression such as Friedman and Schwartz, "Monetary History of the United States", Ben Bernanke's 2000 work, "Essays on the Great Depression", or even Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, also in 2000, you would understand how off the wall your cited research was and why it probably couldn't find a publisher.

You're a lying fucktard with an agenda. I've said nothing that belies basic economics and you want to come out saying I deserve to be called out? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of you bull shit post. Don't think I'm going to waste too much time on worms like yourself.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom


"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.*
*
"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."

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.
*
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- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The very first sentence in your quote gives away the rest. In fact, the depression has been exhaustively studied, and is well understood- by reputable economists anyway, including the money-changer in chief himself, Ben Bernanke, who wrote a book on it.

Ben Bernanke? You mean the guy that just last week said he wasn't "qualified" to advise Detroit regarding their bankruptcy?

The Great Depression was greatly exacerbated by the government. If you don't realize that, then you're in denial. Not so ironically, govt. red tape is flying again and the economy is shit.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.

You might want to moderate your language and reconsider presenting yourself as knowledgeable about economists. There are about a dozen posters on this board with graduate degrees in economics, five of which by my count have taught university level economics and three of which are published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to hang with that kind of crowd, you will have to understand the subject matter, make cogent arguments, and lose the attitude.

You might want to fuck off.

 

[Toro]

You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.

You might want to moderate your language and reconsider presenting yourself as knowledgeable about economists. There are about a dozen posters on this board with graduate degrees in economics, five of which by my count have taught university level economics and three of which are published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to hang with that kind of crowd, you will have to understand the subject matter, make cogent arguments, and lose the attitude.

Gasbag thinks GDP growth isn't economic growth.

Just so you understand the level you're dealing with here.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You clearly are not familiar with economists! Fucking clearly. The media always cherry picks those handful who yuck it up for FDR and you translate that as a majority. I'm seriously asking you this. Have you even taken an economics class? Because FDR policies are rife with what's called waste.

You might want to moderate your language and reconsider presenting yourself as knowledgeable about economists. There are about a dozen posters on this board with graduate degrees in economics, five of which by my count have taught university level economics and three of which are published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to hang with that kind of crowd, you will have to understand the subject matter, make cogent arguments, and lose the attitude.

Gasbag thinks GDP growth isn't economic growth.

Just so you understand the level you're dealing with here.

You're a total fucking idiot. If you're going to taunt and mock; at least be on the fucking money, instead of cockily making fallacious points like a total fucking retard.

GDP is only an economic indicator. It doesn't equate to economic growth if you astronomically increase the debt and/or have large inflation. These are simple concepts that you would know if you took economics instead of just making the laughable claim that you have a degree in economics.

 

[Toro]

You might want to moderate your language and reconsider presenting yourself as knowledgeable about economists. There are about a dozen posters on this board with graduate degrees in economics, five of which by my count have taught university level economics and three of which are published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to hang with that kind of crowd, you will have to understand the subject matter, make cogent arguments, and lose the attitude.

Gasbag thinks GDP growth isn't economic growth.

Just so you understand the level you're dealing with here.

You're a total fucking idiot. If you're going to taunt and mock; at least be on the fucking money, instead of cockily making fallacious points like a total fucking retard.

GDP is only an economic indicator. It doesn't equate to economic growth if you astronomically increase the debt and/or have large inflation. These are simple concepts that you would know if you took economics instead of just making the laughable claim that you have a degree in economics.

^^^^^^
Gasbag didn't know how coupons worked either.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/286498-payless-shoes-f-ing-geniuses.html

rofl

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Who gives a fuck about your trolling, bitch. Some of us move on. Read this link and learn that GDP is not the be-all when it comes to economic analysis:

Does Growth Equal Progress? The Myth of GDP | Demos