How The 1930s Produced Barack Obama

[PoliticalChic]

The Great Depression is one of the most studied periods in American history. The nation needed to find the causes and cures to prevent or remedy these events.
The answer for many years was to compare a nation's economy to a simple household economy: when the economy seems troubled, cut spending, balance the budget and reduce the debt.
When FDR entered the White House that was his number one solution, but the reality and the Congress quickly changed that approach. So FDR tried another method, Keynes, not because of Keynes, but because circumstances dictated new ideas were needed, and needed quickly.
To this day and after all those studies, all that research, all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?
What solutions were used on the recent recession?
How do our politicians hurt or help to solve the problem?

"The Great Depression is one of the....blah blah blah...."


"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel Quotes - BrainyQuote



FDR lied about what he would do if elected, he lied about the causes of the Depression, and,ultimately, retarded the conclusion of same.





"....all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?"

Harding did it in a year.

Try reading a book....libraries are free.

All the history books that I have read, that rate the presidents, have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and Harding as one of the worst. Harding even beat Bush out for worst.
So can you recommend a history book that rates FDR as one of the worst presidents and Harding as one of the best?
Thank you.

"All the history books that I have read,....." lie.


Here, let me prove that.


1. For Liberal 'historians', Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive."

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy," By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....

So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.





You can take my word for it.....that would be wise......or you can demand the data that proves my assertion....

...I await, with undisguised impatience, your decision.

 

[BillyP]

Obama wasn't born until the 60s, thus the OP suffers an epic fail.

 

[regent]

"The Great Depression is one of the....blah blah blah...."


"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel Quotes - BrainyQuote



FDR lied about what he would do if elected, he lied about the causes of the Depression, and,ultimately, retarded the conclusion of same.





"....all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?"

Harding did it in a year.

Try reading a book....libraries are free.

All the history books that I have read, that rate the presidents, have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and Harding as one of the worst. Harding even beat Bush out for worst.
So can you recommend a history book that rates FDR as one of the worst presidents and Harding as one of the best?
Thank you.

"All the history books that I have read,....." lie.


Here, let me prove that.


1. For Liberal 'historians', Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive."

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy," By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....

So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.





You can take my word for it.....that would be wise......or you can demand the data that proves my assertion....

...I await, with undisguised impatience, your decision.

Can't come up with anything eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama wasn't born until the 60s, thus the OP suffers an epic fail.

Try to understand the meaning of the word 'provenance.'



An actual education would be to your immense advantage.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All the history books that I have read, that rate the presidents, have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and Harding as one of the worst. Harding even beat Bush out for worst.
So can you recommend a history book that rates FDR as one of the worst presidents and Harding as one of the best?
Thank you.

"All the history books that I have read,....." lie.


Here, let me prove that.


1. For Liberal 'historians', Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive."

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy," By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....

So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.





You can take my word for it.....that would be wise......or you can demand the data that proves my assertion....

...I await, with undisguised impatience, your decision.

Can't come up with anything eh?

Your default is, with metronomic regulary, to defer to your favorite "historians."


I've given you an opportunity to see proof that they, and Roosevelt, have built a reputation based on lies.


But....weakling that you are, you've declined to view the truth.



"You can take my word for it.....that would be wise......or you can demand the data that proves my assertion...."

 

[Dad2three]

The Great Depression is one of the most studied periods in American history. The nation needed to find the causes and cures to prevent or remedy these events.
The answer for many years was to compare a nation's economy to a simple household economy: when the economy seems troubled, cut spending, balance the budget and reduce the debt.
When FDR entered the White House that was his number one solution, but the reality and the Congress quickly changed that approach. So FDR tried another method, Keynes, not because of Keynes, but because circumstances dictated new ideas were needed, and needed quickly.
To this day and after all those studies, all that research, all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?
What solutions were used on the recent recession?
How do our politicians hurt or help to solve the problem?

"The Great Depression is one of the....blah blah blah...."


"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel Quotes - BrainyQuote



FDR lied about what he would do if elected, he lied about the causes of the Depression, and,ultimately, retarded the conclusion of same.





"....all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?"

Harding did it in a year.

Try reading a book....libraries are free.

Moronic to compare the 1921 to 1929 GOP downturns. Get honest ONCE

Until right wing think tanks created a new 'narrative', it's been fairly understood what REALLY happened in Harding/Coolidge's GOP great depression!

 

[Dad2three]

"The Great Depression is one of the....blah blah blah...."


"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel Quotes - BrainyQuote



FDR lied about what he would do if elected, he lied about the causes of the Depression, and,ultimately, retarded the conclusion of same.





"....all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?"

Harding did it in a year.

Try reading a book....libraries are free.

All the history books that I have read, that rate the presidents, have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and Harding as one of the worst. Harding even beat Bush out for worst.
So can you recommend a history book that rates FDR as one of the worst presidents and Harding as one of the best?
Thank you.

"All the history books that I have read,....." lie.


Here, let me prove that.


1. For Liberal 'historians', Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive."

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy," By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....

So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.


[
You can take my word for it.....that would be wise......or you can demand the data that proves my assertion....

...I await, with undisguised impatience, your decision.

[


B]Unfettered "free market" Capitalism led to the 1929 Stock Market Crash and Great Depression [/B]






The 1929 Stock Market crash was a result of various economic imbalances and structural failings. These are some of the most significant economic factors behind the stock market crash of 1929.

Credit Boom

In the 1920s, there was a rapid growth in bank credit and loans. Encouraged by the strength of the economy people felt the stock market was a one way bet. Some consumers borrowed to buy shares. Firms took out more loans for expansion. Because people became highly indebted, it meant they became more susceptible to a change in confidence. When that change of confidence came in 1929, those who had borrowed were particularly exposed and joined the rush to sell shares and try and redeem their debts.


Buying on the Margin

Related to buying on credit was the practise of buying shares on the margin. This meant you only had to pay 10 or 20% of the value of the shares; it meant you were borrowing 80-90% of the value of the shares. This enabled more money to be put into shares, increasing their value. It is said there were many ‘margin millionaire’ investors. They had made huge profits by buying on the margin and watching share prices rise. But, it left investors very exposed when prices fell. These margin millionaires got wiped out when the stock market fall came. It also affected those banks and investors who had lent money to those buying on the margin.

Irrational Exuberance

A lot of the Stock Market crash can be blamed on over exuberance and false expectations. In the years leading up to 1929, the stock market offered the potential for making huge gains in wealth. It was the new gold rush. People bought shares with the expectations of making more money. As share prices rose, people started to borrow money to invest in the stock market. The market got caught up in a speculative bubble. – Shares kept rising and people felt they would continue to do so. The problem was that stock prices became divorced from the real potential earnings of the share prices. Prices were not being driven by economic fundamentals but the optimism / exuberance of investors. The average earning per share rose by 400% between 1923 and 1929



Mismatch between production and consumption

What Caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929? | Economics Help



B]Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it[/B]

Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it | Politics | McClatchy DC



Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression?

Conservatives' newest talking point -- designed to stop Congress from passing an economic stimulus package -- is breathtaking.

Sure, the vast majority of Americans think the New Deal worked well. But are conservatives right? Did the New Deal’s “massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression?”

Ummm … no.

On deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt’s term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal’s spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR “was persuaded to balance the budget” and “cut spending and the economy went back down again.”


What about the New Deal’s most “massive government intervention” — its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn’t detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, “Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression.” In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was “the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since … the Civil War.”

OK — if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians — do they “pretty much agree” on the opposite?

Again, no.




Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression? - Salon.com

 

[Dad2three]

So...you didn't get up to post #4, huh?


There are medications for A.D.D.


Ask your doctor if they are right for you.

In other words you'll stick with the Chi and Australian school failures. Got it

Funny that you mention "failure"....


1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%

4. Total federal debt is up 58%

5. Gasoline prices are up 82%

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%

7. Debt held by the public is up 89%

However, the Obama administration recently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and $626 billion the year after. At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency.
As of 2012, according to the most recent figures reported by the Census Bureau, median (midpoint) income for all U.S. households was $51,017, which was 4.9 percent lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was in 2008, the year before Obama took office.
The same story applies to family income, which includes many families with two earners. (The “household” figure includes single persons living alone, as well as families.) Median family income in 2012 was $62,241, or 5.1 percent below the inflation-adjusted 2008 level.
The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures.

8. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.
Obama?s Numbers, October Update

9... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun

10. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama | NewsBusters

11. . ".... the... [dollar] has today a value of barely a 1,250th of an ounce of gold, a staggering plunge from an 853rd of an ounce on the day Mr. Obama took office...." Fiat Wages - The New York Sun


12. "CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made

Federal deficits have soared between 2009 and 2012, bring the total long-term debt to a level equal to 73 percent of the nation’s GDP. “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.”
CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made | Dallas Morning News

13. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard

14. "(CNSNews.com) - The real median income of American women dropped a little more than four percent in the first three full years after the end of the last recession,..... Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009." Median Income of Women Dropped 4%--In First 3 Years of Recovery | CNS News

15. "US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy slowed drastically in the first three months of the year... to a barely discernible 0.1 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. That was the weakest pace since the end of 2012 and was down from a 2.6 percent rate in the previous quarter.... the anemic growth last quarter is surely a topic for discussion at the Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting,..."
My Way News - US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1

16. "More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force
The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent in March, the lowest it has been since September 2008 when it was 6.1 percent. The sharp drop, though, occurred because the number of people working or seeking work fell. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count people not looking for a job as unemployed.
The bureau noted that the civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 last month, following an increase of 503,000 in March."
Report: More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force « CBS DC
The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in the labor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month.

17. "The U.S. economy contracted at a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the first quarter, but there are indications that growth has sincerebounded strongly.
The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace it had reported last month." Final US first quarter GDP contracts

18. (CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force climbed to a record high of 92,120,000 in June, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)..... the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. Record Number of Americans Not in Labor Force in June | CNS News

19. (CNSNews.com) – The unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double that of white Americans, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).... In the numbers released today, covering the month of June, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for black Americans age 16 and over was 10.7%, reported the BLS. The unemployment rate for white Americans in the same age group and time-frame was 5.3%, said the BLS. Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3% | CNS News

20. (CNSNews.com) - 11.4 million Americans age 16 and over have left the workforce since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to data released today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
In July 2014, there were 92,001,000 Americans, 16 and over, who were classified as “not in the labor force,” meaning they not only did not have a job, but they didn’t actively seek one in the last four weeks
11,472,000 Americans Have Left Workforce Since Obama Took Office | CNS News



Excellent link showing the economy US Household Income | Department of Numbers

Yes, like 1929, when the GOP digs a hole, they dig it wide and deep for the Dems to bring US out of their economy!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Great Depression is one of the most studied periods in American history. The nation needed to find the causes and cures to prevent or remedy these events.
The answer for many years was to compare a nation's economy to a simple household economy: when the economy seems troubled, cut spending, balance the budget and reduce the debt.
When FDR entered the White House that was his number one solution, but the reality and the Congress quickly changed that approach. So FDR tried another method, Keynes, not because of Keynes, but because circumstances dictated new ideas were needed, and needed quickly.
To this day and after all those studies, all that research, all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?
What solutions were used on the recent recession?
How do our politicians hurt or help to solve the problem?

"The Great Depression is one of the....blah blah blah...."


"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel Quotes - BrainyQuote



FDR lied about what he would do if elected, he lied about the causes of the Depression, and,ultimately, retarded the conclusion of same.





"....all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?"

Harding did it in a year.

Try reading a book....libraries are free.

Moronic to compare the 1921 to 1929 GOP downturns. Get honest ONCE

Until right wing think tanks created a new 'narrative', it's been fairly understood what REALLY happened in Harding/Coolidge's GOP great depression!

You'll have to wait for reggie to ask for the data before I shred your Roosevelt boot-licking nonsense.


Stay tuned.

 

[BillyP]

All the history books that I have read, that rate the presidents, have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and Harding as one of the worst. Harding even beat Bush out for worst.
So can you recommend a history book that rates FDR as one of the worst presidents and Harding as one of the best?
Thank you.

"All the history books that I have read,....." lie.


Here, let me prove that.


1. For Liberal 'historians', Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive."

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy," By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....

So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.


[
You can take my word for it.....that would be wise......or you can demand the data that proves my assertion....

...I await, with undisguised impatience, your decision.

[


B]Unfettered "free market" Capitalism led to the 1929 Stock Market Crash and Great Depression [/B]






The 1929 Stock Market crash was a result of various economic imbalances and structural failings. These are some of the most significant economic factors behind the stock market crash of 1929.

Credit Boom

In the 1920s, there was a rapid growth in bank credit and loans. Encouraged by the strength of the economy people felt the stock market was a one way bet. Some consumers borrowed to buy shares. Firms took out more loans for expansion. Because people became highly indebted, it meant they became more susceptible to a change in confidence. When that change of confidence came in 1929, those who had borrowed were particularly exposed and joined the rush to sell shares and try and redeem their debts.


Buying on the Margin

Related to buying on credit was the practise of buying shares on the margin. This meant you only had to pay 10 or 20% of the value of the shares; it meant you were borrowing 80-90% of the value of the shares. This enabled more money to be put into shares, increasing their value. It is said there were many ‘margin millionaire’ investors. They had made huge profits by buying on the margin and watching share prices rise. But, it left investors very exposed when prices fell. These margin millionaires got wiped out when the stock market fall came. It also affected those banks and investors who had lent money to those buying on the margin.

Irrational Exuberance

A lot of the Stock Market crash can be blamed on over exuberance and false expectations. In the years leading up to 1929, the stock market offered the potential for making huge gains in wealth. It was the new gold rush. People bought shares with the expectations of making more money. As share prices rose, people started to borrow money to invest in the stock market. The market got caught up in a speculative bubble. – Shares kept rising and people felt they would continue to do so. The problem was that stock prices became divorced from the real potential earnings of the share prices. Prices were not being driven by economic fundamentals but the optimism / exuberance of investors. The average earning per share rose by 400% between 1923 and 1929



Mismatch between production and consumption

What Caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929? | Economics Help



B]Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it[/B]

Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it | Politics | McClatchy DC



Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression?

Conservatives' newest talking point -- designed to stop Congress from passing an economic stimulus package -- is breathtaking.

Sure, the vast majority of Americans think the New Deal worked well. But are conservatives right? Did the New Deal’s “massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression?”

Ummm … no.

On deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt’s term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal’s spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR “was persuaded to balance the budget” and “cut spending and the economy went back down again.”


What about the New Deal’s most “massive government intervention” — its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn’t detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, “Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression.” In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was “the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since … the Civil War.”

OK — if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians — do they “pretty much agree” on the opposite?

Again, no.




Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression? - Salon.com

And that's how Obama came about. Brilliant.

 

[Dad2three]

"All the history books that I have read,....." lie.


Here, let me prove that.


1. For Liberal 'historians', Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive."

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy," By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....

So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.


[
You can take my word for it.....that would be wise......or you can demand the data that proves my assertion....

...I await, with undisguised impatience, your decision.

[


B]Unfettered "free market" Capitalism led to the 1929 Stock Market Crash and Great Depression [/B]






The 1929 Stock Market crash was a result of various economic imbalances and structural failings. These are some of the most significant economic factors behind the stock market crash of 1929.

Credit Boom

In the 1920s, there was a rapid growth in bank credit and loans. Encouraged by the strength of the economy people felt the stock market was a one way bet. Some consumers borrowed to buy shares. Firms took out more loans for expansion. Because people became highly indebted, it meant they became more susceptible to a change in confidence. When that change of confidence came in 1929, those who had borrowed were particularly exposed and joined the rush to sell shares and try and redeem their debts.


Buying on the Margin

Related to buying on credit was the practise of buying shares on the margin. This meant you only had to pay 10 or 20% of the value of the shares; it meant you were borrowing 80-90% of the value of the shares. This enabled more money to be put into shares, increasing their value. It is said there were many ‘margin millionaire’ investors. They had made huge profits by buying on the margin and watching share prices rise. But, it left investors very exposed when prices fell. These margin millionaires got wiped out when the stock market fall came. It also affected those banks and investors who had lent money to those buying on the margin.

Irrational Exuberance

A lot of the Stock Market crash can be blamed on over exuberance and false expectations. In the years leading up to 1929, the stock market offered the potential for making huge gains in wealth. It was the new gold rush. People bought shares with the expectations of making more money. As share prices rose, people started to borrow money to invest in the stock market. The market got caught up in a speculative bubble. – Shares kept rising and people felt they would continue to do so. The problem was that stock prices became divorced from the real potential earnings of the share prices. Prices were not being driven by economic fundamentals but the optimism / exuberance of investors. The average earning per share rose by 400% between 1923 and 1929



Mismatch between production and consumption

What Caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929? | Economics Help



B]Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it[/B]

Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives are rewriting it | Politics | McClatchy DC



Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression?

Conservatives' newest talking point -- designed to stop Congress from passing an economic stimulus package -- is breathtaking.

Sure, the vast majority of Americans think the New Deal worked well. But are conservatives right? Did the New Deal’s “massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression?”

Ummm … no.

On deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt’s term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal’s spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR “was persuaded to balance the budget” and “cut spending and the economy went back down again.”


What about the New Deal’s most “massive government intervention” — its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn’t detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, “Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression.” In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was “the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since … the Civil War.”

OK — if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians — do they “pretty much agree” on the opposite?

Again, no.




Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression? - Salon.com

And that's how Obama came about. Brilliant.

Kinda, Dubya followed Harding/Coolidge/Reagan's 'hands off' approach to the economy/Banksters and led US into the Dubya recession that Obama is slowly (like FDR did) out of a GOP caused crisis!

 

[Dad2three]

"The Great Depression is one of the....blah blah blah...."


"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel Quotes - BrainyQuote



FDR lied about what he would do if elected, he lied about the causes of the Depression, and,ultimately, retarded the conclusion of same.





"....all the various attempts to prevent and cure recessions/depressions, what have we come up with?"

Harding did it in a year.

Try reading a book....libraries are free.

Moronic to compare the 1921 to 1929 GOP downturns. Get honest ONCE

Until right wing think tanks created a new 'narrative', it's been fairly understood what REALLY happened in Harding/Coolidge's GOP great depression!

You'll have to wait for reggie to ask for the data before I shred your Roosevelt boot-licking nonsense.


Stay tuned.

AEI talking points coming up right? lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

Moronic to compare the 1921 to 1929 GOP downturns. Get honest ONCE

Until right wing think tanks created a new 'narrative', it's been fairly understood what REALLY happened in Harding/Coolidge's GOP great depression!

You'll have to wait for reggie to ask for the data before I shred your Roosevelt boot-licking nonsense.


Stay tuned.

AEI talking points coming up right? lol

1. Well...two facts make me reconsider, and post the data now....

a. reggie's inability to get over his abject fear.....

and

b. your abysmal ignorance demands rectification. So, take notes, DadofIQ3



Ready?

2. In post #21 I provided the lies of Roosevelt's 'historians,' the 'underconsumption explanation of the Depression.

Here, from the horse's mouth, Roosevelt, himself:

"Now it is worth remembering, and the cold figures of finance prove it, that during that time there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay, although those same figures proved that the cost of production fell very greatly; corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten, and by no means an adequate proportion was even paid out in dividends--the stockholder was forgotten."
Roosevelt's Nomination Address, Chicago, Ill., July 2, 1932



This is Franklin Roosevelt presenting the 'underconsumption thesis' : "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages;..."






3. In order for the 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these three criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."

b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."

c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."

Those quotations are from Roosevelt himself.





4. Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda to which you genuflect!
Read it and weep, dope:

a. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!

b. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.


c. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.
Get it??? Wages increased!!


d. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh? Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35





So....while you Leftists fail 'reality 101,' you pass 'indoctrination 101' with flying colors!
You will be awarded your "Reliable Democrat Voter" pin.
Wear it with pride!

 

[Dad2three]

You'll have to wait for reggie to ask for the data before I shred your Roosevelt boot-licking nonsense.


Stay tuned.

AEI talking points coming up right? lol

1. Well...two facts make me reconsider, and post the data now....

a. reggie's inability to get over his abject fear.....

and

b. your abysmal ignorance demands rectification. So, take notes, DadofIQ3



Ready?

2. In post #21 I provided the lies of Roosevelt's 'historians,' the 'underconsumption explanation of the Depression.

Here, from the horse's mouth, Roosevelt, himself:

"Now it is worth remembering, and the cold figures of finance prove it, that during that time there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay, although those same figures proved that the cost of production fell very greatly; corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten, and by no means an adequate proportion was even paid out in dividends--the stockholder was forgotten."
Roosevelt's Nomination Address, Chicago, Ill., July 2, 1932



This is Franklin Roosevelt presenting the 'underconsumption thesis' : "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages;..."






3. In order for the 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these three criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."

b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."

c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."

Those quotations are from Roosevelt himself.





4. Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda to which you genuflect!
Read it and weep, dope:

a. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!

b. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.


c. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.
Get it??? Wages increased!!


d. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh? Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35





So....while you Leftists fail 'reality 101,' you pass 'indoctrination 101' with flying colors!
You will be awarded your "Reliable Democrat Voter" pin.
Wear it with pride!

FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES. The ONLY thing right wingers EVER have. Seriously? You pick ONE thing ('underconsumption thesis') and set out your argument from there? lol


5%? WTF DOES THE TOP 5% HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

CORP PROFITS? HOW ABOUT SECTOR PROFITS?

B. The Profit Boom.

Who benefited from the abundance of labor? Not surprisingly, it was primarily the owners of companies in the leading sectors of the "roaring 20s," i.e., the industrial and corporate sectors. The flow of relatively cheap labor encouraged high and rising profit shares and rates in these sectors


Of course, this encouraged the leading sectors to continue to lead: since "nothing succeeds like success" (a slogan that captures the 1920s spirit), relative profit-rate rises attract accumulation. Moreover, the dominant political power of the most laissez-faire-oriented sections of the capitalist class meant that the government policies reinforced the trend toward inequality. The epitome of this process was the role of millionaire Andrew Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury, who pushed through tax cuts for the rich (including himself).

So even though the profit share (R/Y) fell for the economy as a whole between 1909 (or 1916 or 1925) and 1929 [Duménil et al., 1987], the share of profits rose for the leading sectors [Devine, 1988]. Whereas before the War, there is no large difference between the behavior of profit shares when one breaks down the data into sub-sectors, in the 1920s uneven development is manifest, favoring these leading sectors



Great Collapse/section III: the U.S.




NOTE ANYTHING HERE:

LIKE I SAID, AEI TALKING POINTS, lol

 

[regent]

The sad thing is we have no foolproof method at this time of preventing a depression and once started, of curing a depression. Even believing we know the the cause of the Great Depression does not mean we have the answer to all depressions. A nation's economic system is composed of many factors and those factors may have to be in the right amounts for a depression to begin, or to end.
To this day we have no known cure for recessions/depressions, which is why FDR in his inaugural address said we are going to experiment and try different things, and he did. The biggest flaw of FDR's experiments seems to be he didn't spend enough.
If Keynes is the answer, the flaw there seems to be our politicians don't seem to want to pay back the money when the depression ends.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama is copying the FDR Depression Playbook to the letter and getting the exact same results

FDR got the US out of the depression. President Obama is getting us out of the Bush recession and has kept it from going to a full depression.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama is copying the FDR Depression Playbook to the letter and getting the exact same results

FDR got the US out of the depression.

actually dear, FDR's administration was the Great Depression and WW2. To say a depression got us out of a depression is completely brainless but 100% liberal

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The sad thing is we have no foolproof method at this time of preventing a depression and once started, of curing a depression. Even believing we know the the cause of the Great Depression does not mean we have the answer to all depressions. A nation's economic system is composed of many factors and those factors may have to be in the right amounts for a depression to begin, or to end.
To this day we have no known cure for recessions/depressions, which is why FDR in his inaugural address said we are going to experiment and try different things, and he did. The biggest flaw of FDR's experiments seems to be he didn't spend enough.
If Keynes is the answer, the flaw there seems to be our politicians don't seem to want to pay back the money when the depression ends.

100% liberal and idiotic. Friedman and Bernanke are the great experts and they agree depression was caused by liberal interference. People don't decide they no longer want to work and feed their families. They lose their jobs in great numbers only when liberals interfere with the economy. Liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism so can't understand the process.

 

[regent]

The sad thing is we have no foolproof method at this time of preventing a depression and once started, of curing a depression. Even believing we know the the cause of the Great Depression does not mean we have the answer to all depressions. A nation's economic system is composed of many factors and those factors may have to be in the right amounts for a depression to begin, or to end.
To this day we have no known cure for recessions/depressions, which is why FDR in his inaugural address said we are going to experiment and try different things, and he did. The biggest flaw of FDR's experiments seems to be he didn't spend enough.
If Keynes is the answer, the flaw there seems to be our politicians don't seem to want to pay back the money when the depression ends.

100% liberal and idiotic. Friedman and Bernanke are the great experts and they agree depression was caused by liberal interference. People don't decide they no longer want to work and feed their families. They lose their jobs in great numbers only when liberals interfere with the economy. Liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism so can't understand the process.

The liberals didn't interfere much with Coolidge and Hoover, they did their Republican thing and America had its greatest depression ever. Seems to be a pattern, Republicans start depression/recessions Democrats come in and get the economy working again and then we elect some Republicans and start the pattern again. Bush was just part of that Republican pattern. Now we're pulling out slowly even with all the Republican shut-downs of government. Can we imagine any party voting fifty or so times to repeal Obamacare? What is wrong with those people.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The liberals didn't interfere much with Coolidge and Hoover,

100% idiotic and liberal! Hoover was a liberal of course! Ever heard of the Hoover Dam stimulus project?? See why we are forced to believe that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?