Krugman opinion: "Yes, he could"

[bripat9643]

Got it, MORE crap from the low life conservative. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you


I know, it wasn't the overproduction of the 20's, the 'markets will take care of themselves' of Harding/Coolidge that caused the GOP great recession, it was FDR and Hoover *shaking head*

Sorry Bubba, only the low informed types who buy into Ayn Rand's fiction believes AEI, CATO,etc rewriting of history

Stocks lost 90% of their value by the time FDR came into office, thousands of banks had failed and unemployment was over 24%, BUT it was FDR who caused it? lol

Sorry, my minor in history against you and your right wing garbage says YOU are full of it...

Yeah, the "overproduction"thesis was disproven eons ago. It doesnt even make economic sense. Not that you'd understand that, of course.

Disproven? lol, OH IN RIGHT WING WORLD PERHAPS, in reality, not so much


American History the causes of the Great Depression

Overproduction

One of the critical faults that led to the Great Depression was overproduction. This was not just a problem in industrial manufacturing, but also an agricultural issue. From as early as the middle of the 1920s, American farmers were producing far more food than the population was consuming. As farmers expanded their production to aid the war effort during WWI they also mechanised their techniques, a process which both improved their output but also cost a lot of money, putting farmers into debt. Furthermore, land prices for many farmers dropped by as much as 40 per cent – as a result, the agricultural system began to fail throughout the 20s, leaving large sections of the population with little money and no work. Thus, as demand dropped with increasing supply, the price of products fell, in turn leaving the over-expanded farmers short-changed and farms often foreclosed. This saw unemployment rise and food production fall by the end of the 1920s.

While agriculture struggled, industry soared in the decade preceding the Wall Street Crash. In the ‘boom’ period before the ‘bust’, a lot of people were buying things like cars, household appliances and consumer products. Importantly, however, these purchases were often made on credit. And as production continued apace the market quickly dried up; too many products were being produced with too few people earning enough money to buy them – the factory workers themselves, for example, could not afford the goods coming out of the factories they worked in. The economic crisis that soon would engulf Europe for reasons to be explained, meant that goods could not be sold across the Atlantic either, leaving America’s industries to create an unsustainable surplus of products.

Causes of the Great Depression

Try quoting an economist about the cause of the Depression rather than an Historian and perhaps you won't look like such a fool.

 

[bripat9643]

LOW TAXES AND LESS GOV'T? LOL


Oh right, the conservatives answer to EVERYTHING. Let me know how cutting taxes has EVER created more jobs. And sorry you can't critically think about the causes of the GOP great depression, hint 'free markets'...

Well JFK thought so, and his tax cuts created a boom. Reagan thought so and his tax cuts created a boom. Coolidge thought so and his tax cuts created a boom.
So there's threee different examples, including a Democrat. You lose.

Except, in every case, spending was increased as well. You do know that toprove causality, all other variables have to be held constant. Surely you have a grasp of this simple concept?

That's why you can never use statistical data to prove any theorem in economics.

 

[Listening]

Your posts say otherwise!

Please show me where I ask for explanations in my posts.

Or is this the blather of another self-righteous lefty self proclaimed know-it-all ?

Your posts demonstrated that you didn't understand the term compromise hence the need to have it explained it to you.

I realize that you don't think I understand compromise as you define it (that is you get what you want and screw the others).....but I don't need you. So please shove your liberal dictionary up your ass sideways.

 

[Dad2three]

No actually he didnt try low taxes and less government. In fact the opposite.
The Depression Begins: President Hoover Takes Command

LOW TAXES AND LESS GOV'T? LOL


Oh right, the conservatives answer to EVERYTHING. Let me know how cutting taxes has EVER created more jobs. And sorry you can't critically think about the causes of the GOP great depression, hint 'free markets'...

Well JFK thought so, and his tax cuts created a boom. Reagan thought so and his tax cuts created a boom. Coolidge thought so and his tax cuts created a boom.
So there's threee different examples, including a Democrat. You lose.

And of course you kicked on Hoover being a progressive because the evidence overwhelmingly is he was. So was Teddy Roosevelt, of course.

Got it, you conflate LBJ's (NOT JFK) tax cuts which was demand with Reagan who had a top rate of 50%,, MUCH less (half) than HH 25%, lol


Dubya cut taxes, what happened? lol

Sorry, YOU FAIL, AGAIN.... Not that ANYTHING about cutting taxes relates to a 'boom'...

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, you'er wrong. As usual.
Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive: Joan Hoff Wilson, Oscar Handlin: 9780881337051: Amazon.com: Books

IF a book says so, he MUST have been a progressive right? lol


Well, he's not "progressive" the way modern conservatives think about it...

But in some ways you could say that the depression made him MORE progressive... notice the majority of his progressive actions didn't take place until WELL INTO the depression...

He didn't raise taxes UNTIL WE WERE DEEP IN DEPRESSION and he only did that to pay the bills...

He started some programs YEARS after the depression was in full force...

In short, he tried many conservative ideas of low taxes and low gov. involvement and spending for a good year into probably the greatest depression in the history of our nation... before deciding to change paths...



By this standard.... George W Bush was EXTREMELY progressive and so was Reagan...

MUCH MORE than Hoover...

Horseshit:

Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Government Liberal | everysilverlining

2) Following the crash, the Hoover administration went into spending overdrive. Excessive government spending is, of course, a staple of liberal economics and has been since FDR’s reign from 1933 to 1945. But FDR wouldn’t have had the opportunity to implement the New Deal had Hoover not planted its foundations for him. Federal expenditures climbed by 4.7 percent between 1928 and 1929, and over the next three years they rose 8 percent, 17.2 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. Excluding military expenditures, spending under Hoover exploded by an enormous 259 percent. By the end of his term in 1933, federal expenditures had climbed more than 50 percent in dollar terms – the biggest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime. In percentage terms, federal expenditures grew more during Hoover’s one term than they did during the first seven years of FDR’s presidency. Take note, progressives: it didn’t work then, and it isn’t going to work now.

3) Public works projects are also a key component in any liberal or “progressive” plan to get the country working again. Lo and behold, public works projects undertaken by Hoover include the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Hoover Dam. In late 1929, Hoover contacted all forty-eight state governors to make a similar appeal for expanded public works. He went to Congress with a $160 million tax cut, but it was coupled with a doubling of resources for public buildings and dams, highways, and harbors. Even after this massive increase in public works, Hoover proposed in 1932 to set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand even more Federal public works. (Once again, progressives would do well to recognize the similarity of Hoover’s plan to that of the current administration, and the similarly abysmal results they produced.)

4) Within a month of the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover refused to accept the natural economic cycle in which a market crash is followed by cuts in business investment, production and wages. He convened conferences with the nation’s business leaders in order to urge them to keep wages artificially high, even though profits and prices were both falling. These businessmen were told by Hoover that they had to act “voluntarily” to keep up wage rates even if profits should collapse (warning that he would get Congress to force compliance if they failed to comply “voluntarily”). Hoover said at the time, “No president before has ever believed that there was a government responsibility in such cases… We had to pioneer a new field.”

5) In June 1930, President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff into law. It was the most protectionist legislation in American history, and as a result the average tariff rate soared to 59.1 percent. As Professor Barry Poulson describes:

“The act raised the rates on the entire range of dutiable commodities; for example, the average rate increased from 20 percent to 34 percent on agricultural products; from 36 percent to 47 percent on wines, spirits, and beverages; from 50 to 60 percent on wool and woolen manufactures. In all, 887 tariffs were sharply increased and the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items.”

Hoover signed it into law despite the protest of over 1000 economists, and even with international trade in collapse, he defended the legislation against FDR’s critiques, saying in 1932 that Roosevelt would have Americans compete with “peasant and sweated labor abroad.”

In the spring of 1930, the New York Times accurately concluded that “no one in his place could have done more.” Indeed, no one could have, and Hoover proudly touted this fact during his campaign for re-election and throughout the rest of his life. During his campaign in the fall of 1932, Hoover himself summed up his progressive efforts to cure the depression:

Got it, you'll hang onto failed conservative policy that has NEVER worked, ANYWHERE EVER



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.



Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, the "overproduction"thesis was disproven eons ago. It doesnt even make economic sense. Not that you'd understand that, of course.

Disproven? lol, OH IN RIGHT WING WORLD PERHAPS, in reality, not so much


American History the causes of the Great Depression

Overproduction

One of the critical faults that led to the Great Depression was overproduction. This was not just a problem in industrial manufacturing, but also an agricultural issue. From as early as the middle of the 1920s, American farmers were producing far more food than the population was consuming. As farmers expanded their production to aid the war effort during WWI they also mechanised their techniques, a process which both improved their output but also cost a lot of money, putting farmers into debt. Furthermore, land prices for many farmers dropped by as much as 40 per cent – as a result, the agricultural system began to fail throughout the 20s, leaving large sections of the population with little money and no work. Thus, as demand dropped with increasing supply, the price of products fell, in turn leaving the over-expanded farmers short-changed and farms often foreclosed. This saw unemployment rise and food production fall by the end of the 1920s.

While agriculture struggled, industry soared in the decade preceding the Wall Street Crash. In the ‘boom’ period before the ‘bust’, a lot of people were buying things like cars, household appliances and consumer products. Importantly, however, these purchases were often made on credit. And as production continued apace the market quickly dried up; too many products were being produced with too few people earning enough money to buy them – the factory workers themselves, for example, could not afford the goods coming out of the factories they worked in. The economic crisis that soon would engulf Europe for reasons to be explained, meant that goods could not be sold across the Atlantic either, leaving America’s industries to create an unsustainable surplus of products.

Causes of the Great Depression

Try quoting an economist about the cause of the Depression rather than an Historian and perhaps you won't look like such a fool.

Most economists agree that a key cause of the Depression was overproduction, it's ONLY right wingers rewriting history, those by AEI, CATO, etc that disagree.

 

[Listening]

IF a book says so, he MUST have been a progressive right? lol


Well, he's not "progressive" the way modern conservatives think about it...

But in some ways you could say that the depression made him MORE progressive... notice the majority of his progressive actions didn't take place until WELL INTO the depression...

He didn't raise taxes UNTIL WE WERE DEEP IN DEPRESSION and he only did that to pay the bills...

He started some programs YEARS after the depression was in full force...

In short, he tried many conservative ideas of low taxes and low gov. involvement and spending for a good year into probably the greatest depression in the history of our nation... before deciding to change paths...



By this standard.... George W Bush was EXTREMELY progressive and so was Reagan...

MUCH MORE than Hoover...

Horseshit:

Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Government Liberal | everysilverlining

2) Following the crash, the Hoover administration went into spending overdrive. Excessive government spending is, of course, a staple of liberal economics and has been since FDR’s reign from 1933 to 1945. But FDR wouldn’t have had the opportunity to implement the New Deal had Hoover not planted its foundations for him. Federal expenditures climbed by 4.7 percent between 1928 and 1929, and over the next three years they rose 8 percent, 17.2 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. Excluding military expenditures, spending under Hoover exploded by an enormous 259 percent. By the end of his term in 1933, federal expenditures had climbed more than 50 percent in dollar terms – the biggest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime. In percentage terms, federal expenditures grew more during Hoover’s one term than they did during the first seven years of FDR’s presidency. Take note, progressives: it didn’t work then, and it isn’t going to work now.

3) Public works projects are also a key component in any liberal or “progressive” plan to get the country working again. Lo and behold, public works projects undertaken by Hoover include the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Hoover Dam. In late 1929, Hoover contacted all forty-eight state governors to make a similar appeal for expanded public works. He went to Congress with a $160 million tax cut, but it was coupled with a doubling of resources for public buildings and dams, highways, and harbors. Even after this massive increase in public works, Hoover proposed in 1932 to set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand even more Federal public works. (Once again, progressives would do well to recognize the similarity of Hoover’s plan to that of the current administration, and the similarly abysmal results they produced.)

4) Within a month of the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover refused to accept the natural economic cycle in which a market crash is followed by cuts in business investment, production and wages. He convened conferences with the nation’s business leaders in order to urge them to keep wages artificially high, even though profits and prices were both falling. These businessmen were told by Hoover that they had to act “voluntarily” to keep up wage rates even if profits should collapse (warning that he would get Congress to force compliance if they failed to comply “voluntarily”). Hoover said at the time, “No president before has ever believed that there was a government responsibility in such cases… We had to pioneer a new field.”

5) In June 1930, President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff into law. It was the most protectionist legislation in American history, and as a result the average tariff rate soared to 59.1 percent. As Professor Barry Poulson describes:

“The act raised the rates on the entire range of dutiable commodities; for example, the average rate increased from 20 percent to 34 percent on agricultural products; from 36 percent to 47 percent on wines, spirits, and beverages; from 50 to 60 percent on wool and woolen manufactures. In all, 887 tariffs were sharply increased and the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items.”

Hoover signed it into law despite the protest of over 1000 economists, and even with international trade in collapse, he defended the legislation against FDR’s critiques, saying in 1932 that Roosevelt would have Americans compete with “peasant and sweated labor abroad.”

In the spring of 1930, the New York Times accurately concluded that “no one in his place could have done more.” Indeed, no one could have, and Hoover proudly touted this fact during his campaign for re-election and throughout the rest of his life. During his campaign in the fall of 1932, Hoover himself summed up his progressive efforts to cure the depression:

Got it, you'll hang onto failed conservative policy that has NEVER worked, ANYWHERE EVER



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.



Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Got what ? Brainlock ? Oh wait, you'd need a brain.

You didn't even address the points of his post.

Did you really just need to ejaculate your little sermon that badly ?

Feel better ?

Carter just cleaned up and the economy tanked under Reagan. Wait....

 

[bripat9643]

Disproven? lol, OH IN RIGHT WING WORLD PERHAPS, in reality, not so much


American History the causes of the Great Depression

Overproduction

One of the critical faults that led to the Great Depression was overproduction. This was not just a problem in industrial manufacturing, but also an agricultural issue. From as early as the middle of the 1920s, American farmers were producing far more food than the population was consuming. As farmers expanded their production to aid the war effort during WWI they also mechanised their techniques, a process which both improved their output but also cost a lot of money, putting farmers into debt. Furthermore, land prices for many farmers dropped by as much as 40 per cent – as a result, the agricultural system began to fail throughout the 20s, leaving large sections of the population with little money and no work. Thus, as demand dropped with increasing supply, the price of products fell, in turn leaving the over-expanded farmers short-changed and farms often foreclosed. This saw unemployment rise and food production fall by the end of the 1920s.

While agriculture struggled, industry soared in the decade preceding the Wall Street Crash. In the ‘boom’ period before the ‘bust’, a lot of people were buying things like cars, household appliances and consumer products. Importantly, however, these purchases were often made on credit. And as production continued apace the market quickly dried up; too many products were being produced with too few people earning enough money to buy them – the factory workers themselves, for example, could not afford the goods coming out of the factories they worked in. The economic crisis that soon would engulf Europe for reasons to be explained, meant that goods could not be sold across the Atlantic either, leaving America’s industries to create an unsustainable surplus of products.

Causes of the Great Depression

Try quoting an economist about the cause of the Depression rather than an Historian and perhaps you won't look like such a fool.

Most economists agree that a key cause of the Depression was overproduction, it's ONLY right wingers rewriting history, those by AEI, CATO, etc that disagree.

Actually, only Marxists believe that the overproduction was the cause of the Depression.

I don't use the word "economist" because the phrase "Marxist economist" is an oxymoron.

 

[bripat9643]

IF a book says so, he MUST have been a progressive right? lol


Well, he's not "progressive" the way modern conservatives think about it...

But in some ways you could say that the depression made him MORE progressive... notice the majority of his progressive actions didn't take place until WELL INTO the depression...

He didn't raise taxes UNTIL WE WERE DEEP IN DEPRESSION and he only did that to pay the bills...

He started some programs YEARS after the depression was in full force...

In short, he tried many conservative ideas of low taxes and low gov. involvement and spending for a good year into probably the greatest depression in the history of our nation... before deciding to change paths...



By this standard.... George W Bush was EXTREMELY progressive and so was Reagan...

MUCH MORE than Hoover...

Horseshit:

Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Government Liberal | everysilverlining

2) Following the crash, the Hoover administration went into spending overdrive. Excessive government spending is, of course, a staple of liberal economics and has been since FDR’s reign from 1933 to 1945. But FDR wouldn’t have had the opportunity to implement the New Deal had Hoover not planted its foundations for him. Federal expenditures climbed by 4.7 percent between 1928 and 1929, and over the next three years they rose 8 percent, 17.2 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. Excluding military expenditures, spending under Hoover exploded by an enormous 259 percent. By the end of his term in 1933, federal expenditures had climbed more than 50 percent in dollar terms – the biggest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime. In percentage terms, federal expenditures grew more during Hoover’s one term than they did during the first seven years of FDR’s presidency. Take note, progressives: it didn’t work then, and it isn’t going to work now.

3) Public works projects are also a key component in any liberal or “progressive” plan to get the country working again. Lo and behold, public works projects undertaken by Hoover include the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Hoover Dam. In late 1929, Hoover contacted all forty-eight state governors to make a similar appeal for expanded public works. He went to Congress with a $160 million tax cut, but it was coupled with a doubling of resources for public buildings and dams, highways, and harbors. Even after this massive increase in public works, Hoover proposed in 1932 to set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand even more Federal public works. (Once again, progressives would do well to recognize the similarity of Hoover’s plan to that of the current administration, and the similarly abysmal results they produced.)

4) Within a month of the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover refused to accept the natural economic cycle in which a market crash is followed by cuts in business investment, production and wages. He convened conferences with the nation’s business leaders in order to urge them to keep wages artificially high, even though profits and prices were both falling. These businessmen were told by Hoover that they had to act “voluntarily” to keep up wage rates even if profits should collapse (warning that he would get Congress to force compliance if they failed to comply “voluntarily”). Hoover said at the time, “No president before has ever believed that there was a government responsibility in such cases… We had to pioneer a new field.”

5) In June 1930, President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff into law. It was the most protectionist legislation in American history, and as a result the average tariff rate soared to 59.1 percent. As Professor Barry Poulson describes:

“The act raised the rates on the entire range of dutiable commodities; for example, the average rate increased from 20 percent to 34 percent on agricultural products; from 36 percent to 47 percent on wines, spirits, and beverages; from 50 to 60 percent on wool and woolen manufactures. In all, 887 tariffs were sharply increased and the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items.”

Hoover signed it into law despite the protest of over 1000 economists, and even with international trade in collapse, he defended the legislation against FDR’s critiques, saying in 1932 that Roosevelt would have Americans compete with “peasant and sweated labor abroad.”

In the spring of 1930, the New York Times accurately concluded that “no one in his place could have done more.” Indeed, no one could have, and Hoover proudly touted this fact during his campaign for re-election and throughout the rest of his life. During his campaign in the fall of 1932, Hoover himself summed up his progressive efforts to cure the depression:

Got it, you'll hang onto failed conservative policy that has NEVER worked, ANYWHERE EVER

The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

The above must be your way of admitting that I totally blew away the claim you made in your previous post.

BTW, the free market has worked every time it has been tried.

 

[GWV5903]

Of course anything complimentary to Obama was written by a "Hack". How disrespectful of people who have actually accomplished something in their lives.

What have you done, Meathead? I mean besides getting on here and running your mouth with wingnutty talking points?

Krugman is a hack no matter what he is writing about. It is his job.

I don't think so, you may be misinterpreting the meaning of "Hack".

hack 1 (hk)
v.hacked, hack·ing, hacks

v.tr.
1. To cut or chop with repeated and irregular blows: hacked down the saplings.

2. To break up the surface of (soil).

3.
a. Informal To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML.

b. To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.

4. Slang To cut or mutilate as if by hacking: hacked millions off the budget.

5. Slang To cope with successfully; manage: couldn't hack a second job.

v.intr.
1. To chop or cut something by hacking.

2. Informal
a. To write or refine computer programs skillfully.

b. To use one's skill in computer programming to gain illegal or unauthorized access to a file or network: hacked into the company's intranet.

3. To cough roughly or harshly.

n.
1. A rough, irregular cut made by hacking.

2. A tool, such as a hoe, used for hacking.

3. A blow made by hacking.

4. A rough, dry cough.

Okay Sarah you're right, we will just call him a POS...

 

[GWV5903]

Yeah, the "overproduction"thesis was disproven eons ago. It doesnt even make economic sense. Not that you'd understand that, of course.

Disproven? lol, OH IN RIGHT WING WORLD PERHAPS, in reality, not so much


American History the causes of the Great Depression

Overproduction

One of the critical faults that led to the Great Depression was overproduction. This was not just a problem in industrial manufacturing, but also an agricultural issue. From as early as the middle of the 1920s, American farmers were producing far more food than the population was consuming. As farmers expanded their production to aid the war effort during WWI they also mechanised their techniques, a process which both improved their output but also cost a lot of money, putting farmers into debt. Furthermore, land prices for many farmers dropped by as much as 40 per cent – as a result, the agricultural system began to fail throughout the 20s, leaving large sections of the population with little money and no work. Thus, as demand dropped with increasing supply, the price of products fell, in turn leaving the over-expanded farmers short-changed and farms often foreclosed. This saw unemployment rise and food production fall by the end of the 1920s.

While agriculture struggled, industry soared in the decade preceding the Wall Street Crash. In the ‘boom’ period before the ‘bust’, a lot of people were buying things like cars, household appliances and consumer products. Importantly, however, these purchases were often made on credit. And as production continued apace the market quickly dried up; too many products were being produced with too few people earning enough money to buy them – the factory workers themselves, for example, could not afford the goods coming out of the factories they worked in. The economic crisis that soon would engulf Europe for reasons to be explained, meant that goods could not be sold across the Atlantic either, leaving America’s industries to create an unsustainable surplus of products.

Causes of the Great Depression

Try quoting an economist about the cause of the Depression rather than an Historian and perhaps you won't look like such a fool.

He can't help it, he has the fool part down pat...

 

[Dad2three]

Horseshit:

Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Government Liberal | everysilverlining

Got it, you'll hang onto failed conservative policy that has NEVER worked, ANYWHERE EVER



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.



Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Got what ? Brainlock ? Oh wait, you'd need a brain.

You didn't even address the points of his post.

Did you really just need to ejaculate your little sermon that badly ?

Feel better ?

Carter just cleaned up and the economy tanked under Reagan. Wait....

Address what, the Coolidge/Harding depression HH inherited?

Reagan? Oh right the guy who had a top tax rate of 50% for 6 years and once the top rate was cut to that, the unemployment soared, the opposite of what was supposed to happen?

Yes, those '70's policies set in motion by Nixon/Ford wage and price controls and OPEC really hurt Carter, the guy who had 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 4 years to Ronnie's 14 million in 8


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Dad2three]

Try quoting an economist about the cause of the Depression rather than an Historian and perhaps you won't look like such a fool.

Most economists agree that a key cause of the Depression was overproduction, it's ONLY right wingers rewriting history, those by AEI, CATO, etc that disagree.

Actually, only Marxists believe that the overproduction was the cause of the Depression.

I don't use the word "economist" because the phrase "Marxist economist" is an oxymoron.

Sorry Bubba, you need to get a new dictionary and perhaps grow a brain?

 

[Dad2three]

Horseshit:

Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Government Liberal | everysilverlining

Got it, you'll hang onto failed conservative policy that has NEVER worked, ANYWHERE EVER

The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

The above must be your way of admitting that I totally blew away the claim you made in your previous post.

BTW, the free market has worked every time it has been tried.

NEVER has there been a free market, and no, Uncle Miltie had his experiment in Chile with a REAL dictator and TOTAL failure, for all but the 1%ers that is.... Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS does that....

 

[bripat9643]

Most economists agree that a key cause of the Depression was overproduction, it's ONLY right wingers rewriting history, those by AEI, CATO, etc that disagree.

Actually, only Marxists believe that the overproduction was the cause of the Depression.

I don't use the word "economist" because the phrase "Marxist economist" is an oxymoron.

Sorry Bubba, you need to get a new dictionary and perhaps grow a brain?

Your delusions of grandeur must be a source of great sorrow for you. It must be painful when the world keeps informing you that you're a moron.

 

[Dad2three]

Actually, only Marxists believe that the overproduction was the cause of the Depression.

I don't use the word "economist" because the phrase "Marxist economist" is an oxymoron.

Sorry Bubba, you need to get a new dictionary and perhaps grow a brain?

Your delusions of grandeur must be a source of great sorrow for you. It must be painful when the world keeps informing you that you're a moron.

Got it Bubba t, all you have is projection...

 

[bripat9643]

Got it, you'll hang onto failed conservative policy that has NEVER worked, ANYWHERE EVER

The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

The above must be your way of admitting that I totally blew away the claim you made in your previous post.

BTW, the free market has worked every time it has been tried.

NEVER has there been a free market, and no, Uncle Miltie had his experiment in Chile with a REAL dictator and TOTAL failure, for all but the 1%ers that is.... Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS does that....

This stupid argument has been posted at least 10,000 times. Every attempt at pure socialism has resulted in mass starvation and the death of millions. On the other hand, history shows that the closer a nation gets to a free market, that faster the material well-being of its inhabitants increases.

BTW, Chile is hardly a "total failure. It's the wealthiest country in Latin America. Every citizen of Chile should give thanks to Pinochet and Milton Friedman for saving their country from liberalism gone wild.

Weird how conservative economic policy does that.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry Bubba, you need to get a new dictionary and perhaps grow a brain?

Your delusions of grandeur must be a source of great sorrow for you. It must be painful when the world keeps informing you that you're a moron.

Got it Bubba t, all you have is projection...

So you have devolved into pure insults?

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

 

[Political Junky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/o...e-and-climate-president-obamas-big-deals.html

You should judge leaders by their achievements, not their press, and in terms of policy substance Mr. Obama is having a seriously good year. In fact, there’s a very good chance that 2014 will go down in the record books as one of those years when America took a major turn in the right direction.

First, health reform is now a reality — and despite a shambolic start, it’s looking like a big success story. Remember how nobody was going to sign up? First-year enrollments came in above projections. Remember how people who signed up weren’t actually going to pay their premiums? The vast majority have.

We don’t yet have a full picture of the impact of reform on the previously uninsured, but all the information we do have indicates major progress. Surveys, like the monthly survey by Gallup, show a sharp drop in the percentage of Americans reporting themselves as uninsured. States that expanded Medicaid and actively promoted the new exchanges have done especially well — for example, a new survey of Minnesota shows a 40 percent drop in the number of uninsured residents....


....Then there’s climate policy. The Obama administration’s new rules on power plants won’t be enough in themselves to save the planet, but they’re a real start — and are by far the most important environmental initiative since the Clean Air Act. I’d add that this is an issue on which Mr. Obama is showing some real passion.

Oh, and financial reform, although it’s much weaker than it should have been, is real — just ask all those Wall Street types who, enraged by the new limits on their wheeling and dealing, have turned their backs on the Democrats.

Put it all together, and Mr. Obama is looking like a very consequential president indeed. There were huge missed opportunities early in his administration — inadequate stimulus, the failure to offer significant relief to distressed homeowners. Also, he wasted years in pursuit of a Grand Bargain on the budget that, aside from turning out to be impossible, would have moved America in the wrong direction. But in his second term he is making good on the promise of real change for the better. So why all the bad press?

Part of the answer may be Mr. Obama’s relatively low approval rating. But this mainly reflects political polarization — strong approval from Democrats but universal opposition from Republicans — which is more a sign of the times than a problem with the president. Anyway, you’re supposed to judge presidents by what they do, not by fickle public opinion...

----------------------------------------------------------------------


I suspect that history is going to smile upon this president, when all is said and done.

Now, feel free to discuss. I suspect that some of you will probably scream. Carry on.

Yes, and history will also record that Obama did it in spite of a do-nothing Congress which vowed to defeat him in ever endeavor.

 

[Dad2three]

The above must be your way of admitting that I totally blew away the claim you made in your previous post.

BTW, the free market has worked every time it has been tried.

NEVER has there been a free market, and no, Uncle Miltie had his experiment in Chile with a REAL dictator and TOTAL failure, for all but the 1%ers that is.... Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS does that....

This stupid argument has been posted at least 10,000 times. Every attempt at pure socialism has resulted in mass starvation and the death of millions. On the other hand, history shows that the closer a nation gets to a free market, that faster the material well-being of its inhabitants increases.

BTW, Chile is hardly a "total failure. It's the wealthiest country in Latin America. Every citizen of Chile should give thanks to Pinochet and Milton Friedman for saving their country from liberalism gone wild.

Weird how conservative economic policy does that.

Got it, false premises, distortions and LIES, the ONLY thing right wingers have.

Western Europe is a real hellhole right?

Chile? Oh NOW, AFTER the Gov't took back Uncle Milties failed policies, lol


CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST



Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.

Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story.


Chile: the laboratory test



Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan (AGAIN) rescued by Big Gov't, weird right? lol


January 27, 2005


Nearly 25 years ago, Chile embarked on a sweeping experiment that has since been emulated, in one way or another, in a score of other countries. Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.

Under the Chilean program - which President Bush has cited as a model for his plans to overhaul Social Security - the promise was that such investments, by helping to spur economic growth and generating higher returns, would deliver monthly pension benefits larger than what the traditional system could offer.

But now that the first generation of workers to depend on the new system is beginning to retire, Chileans are finding that it is falling far short of what was originally advertised under the authoritarian government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

For all the program's success in economic terms, the government continues to direct billions of dollars to a safety net for those whose contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month. Many others - because they earned much of their income in the underground economy, are self-employed, or work only seasonally - remain outside the system altogether. Combined, those groups constitute roughly half the Chilean labor force. Only half of workers are captured by the system.

Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system.



lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html