Kurt Vonnegut on "Equality"

[boedicca]

The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. WTF are you talking about? WWII could be seen as the largest scale example of Keynesian theory ever practiced and it created decades worth of expansion.

Your economic and historical illiteracy is showing.

FDR was worried, for good reason, that the country would fall back into a recession or depression after the war time spending bulge was done, and was planning more government spending and taxes to continue his big government putsch.

When he died, Truman proposed increased spending, but the Democrat Controlled Congress refused, and CUT TAXES instead. It was yeas of austerity and pent up demand, combined with a great deal of available labor and decreased tax burdens which led to prosperity. The last important aspect is that There Was No Global Competition. The rest of the developed world was largely in ruins. The U.S. productive capacity was basically the only game in town.

Uh huh. And these 'tax cuts' resulted in a top income tax bracket of 91%? What were they before?

Try reading something besides the HuffPo.

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.

Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR's New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade.

Burt Folsom: Did FDR End the Depression? - WSJ.com


And if you want to know the history of income tax rates, look them up yourself. I'm not your internet library assistant.

 

[Sallow]

1. Interesting because it represents the fulcrum between Liberal and Conservative viewponts, is the term “equality.” Here is misunderstanding writ large:
“I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,
when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.
...the two can't exist together?”

Actually.....no.....they can't.

a. For the Left, equality extends beyond the view of the Founders, which is equality before the law. The concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory.

b. Dewey noted in 1936 that liberalism’s “philosophy has rarely been clear cut,” but “that government should regularly intervene to help equalize conditions between the wealthy and the poor, between the overprivileged and the underprivileged.”
Jo Ann Boydston, “John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953,” p. 284-285.





2. . By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

a. It seems to me, self-evident that immobilizing the producers with regulations and confiscatory taxation proves that a nation can have prosperity or equality in all aspects of living- but not both.





3. Perhaps the best way to reveal the inanity of the Left’s campaign for their view of equality is to revisit the satirical exposition of equality, written in 1961 by Kurt Vonnegut….
"Harrison Bergeron" is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and first published in October 1961…The satire raises a serious question concerning desirability of social equality and the extent to which society is prepared to go to achieve it.”
Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." This is the premise of the Showtime film adaption of Kurt Vonnegut's futuristic short story Harrison Bergeron. The film centers around a young man (Harrison) who is smarter than his peers, and is not affected by the usual "Handicapping" which is used to train all Americans so everyone is of equal intelligence.”
Harrison Bergeron (TV 1995) - IMDb

b. “Kurt Vonnegut begins Harrison Bergeron this way: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was quicker or stronger than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut


c. The government forced each individual to wear “handicaps” to offset any advantage they had, so that everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks, the strong had to wear weights, the graceful had to wear bags of birdshot, and those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every twenty seconds “to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”
Kurt Vonnegut, “Harrison Bergeron.”



4. So…is this view of “equality” funny? Perhaps…but it reminds me more of Lord Byron’s words: “And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep.”

First off..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives.

And while it is true the idea of "equality" has changed a great deal in several hundred years, because the founders definitely did not view blacks or women as equal, the fundamental idea still remains.

And that idea is this: The Conservative viewpoint is that power and status are "gifts" from a deity or a birthright. And that people who do not have power and status should proclaim fealty to those who do. That's the notion that the Founders rebelled against.

Second off..if you don't understand Vonnegut, you really shouldn't quote him.

 

[Trajan]

1. Interesting because it represents the fulcrum between Liberal and Conservative viewponts, is the term “equality.” Here is misunderstanding writ large:
“I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,
when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.
...the two can't exist together?”

Actually.....no.....they can't.

a. For the Left, equality extends beyond the view of the Founders, which is equality before the law. The concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory.

b. Dewey noted in 1936 that liberalism’s “philosophy has rarely been clear cut,” but “that government should regularly intervene to help equalize conditions between the wealthy and the poor, between the overprivileged and the underprivileged.”
Jo Ann Boydston, “John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953,” p. 284-285.





2. . By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

a. It seems to me, self-evident that immobilizing the producers with regulations and confiscatory taxation proves that a nation can have prosperity or equality in all aspects of living- but not both.





3. Perhaps the best way to reveal the inanity of the Left’s campaign for their view of equality is to revisit the satirical exposition of equality, written in 1961 by Kurt Vonnegut….
"Harrison Bergeron" is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and first published in October 1961…The satire raises a serious question concerning desirability of social equality and the extent to which society is prepared to go to achieve it.”
Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." This is the premise of the Showtime film adaption of Kurt Vonnegut's futuristic short story Harrison Bergeron. The film centers around a young man (Harrison) who is smarter than his peers, and is not affected by the usual "Handicapping" which is used to train all Americans so everyone is of equal intelligence.”
Harrison Bergeron (TV 1995) - IMDb

b. “Kurt Vonnegut begins Harrison Bergeron this way: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was quicker or stronger than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut


c. The government forced each individual to wear “handicaps” to offset any advantage they had, so that everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks, the strong had to wear weights, the graceful had to wear bags of birdshot, and those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every twenty seconds “to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”
Kurt Vonnegut, “Harrison Bergeron.”



4. So…is this view of “equality” funny? Perhaps…but it reminds me more of Lord Byron’s words: “And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep.”

First off..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives.

And while it is true the idea of "equality" has changed a great deal in several hundred years, because the founders definitely did not view blacks or women as equal, the fundamental idea still remains.

And that idea is this: The Conservative viewpoint is that power and status are "gifts" from a deity or a birthright. And that people who do not have power and status should proclaim fealty to those who do. That's the notion that the Founders rebelled against.

dude, power and status are what? what on earth are you referring to?



and -


a) why aren't you at work?


and b) hand your laptop to the bartender-

hey bartender dude, cut this guy off!!!!!

 

[boedicca]

Sallow should get back to work. The stock exchange is closed. It's time for him to sweep the floor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I guess the de jure/de facto thing must've gone over your head.

You poor sad thing.

We have a Constitution.
It is called the 'law of the land' for a reason.

When folks break the law of the land, no matter the rationalization that you see fit to insert, it is not to be praised.
It is to be abjured.


It seems that you avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel

Yes, I know how compelling the black/white, either/or, good/bad modes of thought are to cons. So tell me why you think you're more of a legal expert than I am.

Well...the obvious reason: you're a dolt.


If you don't understand the concept of the enumerated powers, it becomes a wonder that you can even spell 'Constitution.'



One obviation of the idea that FDR gave any consideration to the Constitution? He inserted the federal government into the housing market via the GSE's Fannie and Freddie.


The ultimate result was the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis.


So....I don't want to say you're stupid.....let's just say, when it comes to thinking, you have bad luck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Interesting because it represents the fulcrum between Liberal and Conservative viewponts, is the term “equality.” Here is misunderstanding writ large:
“I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,
when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.
...the two can't exist together?”

Actually.....no.....they can't.

a. For the Left, equality extends beyond the view of the Founders, which is equality before the law. The concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory.

b. Dewey noted in 1936 that liberalism’s “philosophy has rarely been clear cut,” but “that government should regularly intervene to help equalize conditions between the wealthy and the poor, between the overprivileged and the underprivileged.”
Jo Ann Boydston, “John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953,” p. 284-285.





2. . By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

a. It seems to me, self-evident that immobilizing the producers with regulations and confiscatory taxation proves that a nation can have prosperity or equality in all aspects of living- but not both.





3. Perhaps the best way to reveal the inanity of the Left’s campaign for their view of equality is to revisit the satirical exposition of equality, written in 1961 by Kurt Vonnegut….
"Harrison Bergeron" is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and first published in October 1961…The satire raises a serious question concerning desirability of social equality and the extent to which society is prepared to go to achieve it.”
Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." This is the premise of the Showtime film adaption of Kurt Vonnegut's futuristic short story Harrison Bergeron. The film centers around a young man (Harrison) who is smarter than his peers, and is not affected by the usual "Handicapping" which is used to train all Americans so everyone is of equal intelligence.”
Harrison Bergeron (TV 1995) - IMDb

b. “Kurt Vonnegut begins Harrison Bergeron this way: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was quicker or stronger than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut


c. The government forced each individual to wear “handicaps” to offset any advantage they had, so that everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks, the strong had to wear weights, the graceful had to wear bags of birdshot, and those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every twenty seconds “to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”
Kurt Vonnegut, “Harrison Bergeron.”



4. So…is this view of “equality” funny? Perhaps…but it reminds me more of Lord Byron’s words: “And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep.”

First off..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives.

And while it is true the idea of "equality" has changed a great deal in several hundred years, because the founders definitely did not view blacks or women as equal, the fundamental idea still remains.

And that idea is this: The Conservative viewpoint is that power and status are "gifts" from a deity or a birthright. And that people who do not have power and status should proclaim fealty to those who do. That's the notion that the Founders rebelled against.

Second off..if you don't understand Vonnegut, you really shouldn't quote him.

"..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives."

Totally false.
The modern 'Liberals' didn't exist until Dewey changed the name of the Socialists to Liberals.




Classical liberalism...known today as conservatism.

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp


b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.



c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=



d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

 

[JoeNormal]

You poor sad thing.

We have a Constitution.
It is called the 'law of the land' for a reason.

When folks break the law of the land, no matter the rationalization that you see fit to insert, it is not to be praised.
It is to be abjured.


It seems that you avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel

Yes, I know how compelling the black/white, either/or, good/bad modes of thought are to cons. So tell me why you think you're more of a legal expert than I am.

Well...the obvious reason: you're a dolt.


If you don't understand the concept of the enumerated powers, it becomes a wonder that you can even spell 'Constitution.'



One obviation of the idea that FDR gave any consideration to the Constitution? He inserted the federal government into the housing market via the GSE's Fannie and Freddie.


The ultimate result was the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis.


So....I don't want to say you're stupid.....let's just say, when it comes to thinking, you have bad luck.

Oh brother... It's FDRs fault that we had a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis? Where did you go to school? Glenn Beck University?

I'm sure it's a constant frustration to you that not everything in this world conforms to a black and white paradigm. How do you handle the things that 'should be' but just aren't?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. WTF are you talking about? WWII could be seen as the largest scale example of Keynesian theory ever practiced and it created decades worth of expansion.

Bwahahahahahah



So consumption of domestic consumer goods by the private public at large INCREASED during WWII?

If leftists ever took, and passed, an introductory economics course.....

 

[JoeNormal]

The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. WTF are you talking about? WWII could be seen as the largest scale example of Keynesian theory ever practiced and it created decades worth of expansion.

Bwahahahahahah



So consumption of domestic consumer goods by the private public at large INCREASED during WWII?

If leftists ever took, and passed, an introductory economics course.....

Government demand for war materials pushed production and employment into the stratosphere. After the war, industry retooled for private consumption.

Where did you take your introductory economics course and when?

 

[boedicca]

The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. WTF are you talking about? WWII could be seen as the largest scale example of Keynesian theory ever practiced and it created decades worth of expansion.

Bwahahahahahah



So consumption of domestic consumer goods by the private public at large INCREASED during WWII?

If leftists ever took, and passed, an introductory economics course.....

Government demand for war materials pushed production and employment into the stratosphere. After the war, industry retooled for private consumption.

Where did you take your introductory economics course and when?

You really are ignorant.

SRSLY


But at least your screen name is accurate. Sadly, such economic illiteracy is Normal in the U.S.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, I know how compelling the black/white, either/or, good/bad modes of thought are to cons. So tell me why you think you're more of a legal expert than I am.

Well...the obvious reason: you're a dolt.


If you don't understand the concept of the enumerated powers, it becomes a wonder that you can even spell 'Constitution.'



One obviation of the idea that FDR gave any consideration to the Constitution? He inserted the federal government into the housing market via the GSE's Fannie and Freddie.


The ultimate result was the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis.


So....I don't want to say you're stupid.....let's just say, when it comes to thinking, you have bad luck.

Oh brother... It's FDRs fault that we had a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis? Where did you go to school? Glenn Beck University?

I'm sure it's a constant frustration to you that not everything in this world conforms to a black and white paradigm. How do you handle the things that 'should be' but just aren't?

" It's FDRs fault that we had a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis?"
He is the provenance.

1. Do you understand that the Constitution invests the federal government with authority to do only specific, listed things......supporting housing for individual citizens is not one.


2. Without the FDR-created GSE's, the mortgage meltdown would not have happened.

3. Therefore....FDR is responsible.
He had the enthusiastic support of Democrats Carter, Clinton, Cuomo, Cisneros, Dodd and Frank.

4. My college? A nice little place with the finest school song in the nation.

 

[JoeNormal]

Bwahahahahahah



So consumption of domestic consumer goods by the private public at large INCREASED during WWII?

If leftists ever took, and passed, an introductory economics course.....

Government demand for war materials pushed production and employment into the stratosphere. After the war, industry retooled for private consumption.

Where did you take your introductory economics course and when?

You really are ignorant.

SRSLY


But at least your screen name is accurate. Sadly, such economic illiteracy is Normal in the U.S.

I made a simple and accurate statement. Refute it if you can.

 

[boedicca]

I already have refuted it in earlier posts. It appears that your reading comprehension is also faulty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bwahahahahahah



So consumption of domestic consumer goods by the private public at large INCREASED during WWII?

If leftists ever took, and passed, an introductory economics course.....

Government demand for war materials pushed production and employment into the stratosphere. After the war, industry retooled for private consumption.

Where did you take your introductory economics course and when?

You really are ignorant.

SRSLY


But at least your screen name is accurate. Sadly, such economic illiteracy is Normal in the U.S.

Actually, I don't believe it's "Joe."

It's "Abby."


Abby Normal




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH97lImrr0Q]Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein - "Whose Brain Was it?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Government demand for war materials pushed production and employment into the stratosphere. After the war, industry retooled for private consumption.

Where did you take your introductory economics course and when?

Yes, production rose, while consumption actually declined, from 1941 to 1944.

Are you claiming that Keynes was a supply side advocate?

(Never mind, you wouldn't get it, but PC and Bod will!!)

A war economy is a unique beast. Production does increase, but consumption is by the war machine, which provides none of the benefits, such as turns, that Keynes depended on.

And the ignorance to claim that post war recovery was due to war expenditure is beyond the pale.

The United States emerged from the war as the only industrialized nation with a surviving infrastructure. Even with this, we struggled until the early 50's. Note that even Truman cut taxes and regulation after the war, followed by further cuts during Ike's administration.

The thesis that WWII is an example of Keynesian stimulus is childish, the kind of tripe only an uneducated buffoon, or Paul Krugman, would float.

Oh and sparky, I have just a tad more than an introductory education in the discipline of economics.

 

[JoeNormal]

Well...the obvious reason: you're a dolt.


If you don't understand the concept of the enumerated powers, it becomes a wonder that you can even spell 'Constitution.'



One obviation of the idea that FDR gave any consideration to the Constitution? He inserted the federal government into the housing market via the GSE's Fannie and Freddie.


The ultimate result was the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis.


So....I don't want to say you're stupid.....let's just say, when it comes to thinking, you have bad luck.

Oh brother... It's FDRs fault that we had a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis? Where did you go to school? Glenn Beck University?

I'm sure it's a constant frustration to you that not everything in this world conforms to a black and white paradigm. How do you handle the things that 'should be' but just aren't?

" It's FDRs fault that we had a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis?"
He is the provenance.

1. Do you understand that the Constitution invests the federal government with authority to do only specific, listed things......supporting housing for individual citizens is not one.


2. Without the FDR-created GSE's, the mortgage meltdown would not have happened.

3. Therefore....FDR is responsible.
He had the enthusiastic support of Democrats Carter, Clinton, Cuomo, Cisneros, Dodd and Frank.

4. My college? A nice little place with the finest school in the nation.

Glass-Stegal was put in place during the Roosevelt administration. Keeping that intact would have probably averted the financial collapse. Fanny and Freddy were privatatized and a ridiculous level of deregulation allowed the masters of the universe to get away with murder. You don't think there's some culpability involved with the politicians that came after FDR?

And if you're trying to suggest that you went to Harvard, uhh try harder.

 

[JoeNormal]

Government demand for war materials pushed production and employment into the stratosphere. After the war, industry retooled for private consumption.

Where did you take your introductory economics course and when?

Yes, production rose, while consumption actually declined, from 1941 to 1944.

Are you claiming that Keynes was a supply side advocate?

(Never mind, you wouldn't get it, but PC and Bod will!!)

A war economy is a unique beast. Production does increase, but consumption is by the war machine, which provides none of the benefits, such as turns, that Keynes depended on.

And the ignorance to claim that post war recovery was due to war expenditure is beyond the pale.

The United States emerged from the war as the only industrialized nation with a surviving infrastructure. Even with this, we struggled until the early 50's. Note that even Truman cut taxes and regulation after the war, followed by further cuts during Ike's administration.

The thesis that WWII is an example of Keynesian stimulus is childish, the kind of tripe only an uneducated buffoon, or Paul Krugman, would float.

Oh and sparky, I have just a tad more than an introductory education in the discipline of economics.

Sure you do. Show me your credentials. You sound like every Glenn Beck follower I've ever spoken to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh brother... It's FDRs fault that we had a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis? Where did you go to school? Glenn Beck University?

I'm sure it's a constant frustration to you that not everything in this world conforms to a black and white paradigm. How do you handle the things that 'should be' but just aren't?

" It's FDRs fault that we had a mortgage meltdown and financial crisis?"
He is the provenance.

1. Do you understand that the Constitution invests the federal government with authority to do only specific, listed things......supporting housing for individual citizens is not one.


2. Without the FDR-created GSE's, the mortgage meltdown would not have happened.

3. Therefore....FDR is responsible.
He had the enthusiastic support of Democrats Carter, Clinton, Cuomo, Cisneros, Dodd and Frank.

4. My college? A nice little place with the finest school in the nation.

Glass-Stegal was put in place during the Roosevelt administration. Keeping that intact would have probably averted the financial collapse. Fanny and Freddy were privatatized and a ridiculous level of deregulation allowed the masters of the universe to get away with murder. You don't think there's some culpability involved with the politicians that came after FDR?

And if you're trying to suggest that you went to Harvard, uhh try harder.

What???

Comparing Harvard's song to this???


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsXseZJPg0]Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure you do. Show me your credentials. You sound like every Glenn Beck follower I've ever spoken to.

I'll get right on that...

You know, seeing how I want to impress a 4th grade drop out...

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Interesting because it represents the fulcrum between Liberal and Conservative viewponts, is the term “equality.” Here is misunderstanding writ large:
“I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,
when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.
...the two can't exist together?”

Actually.....no.....they can't.
.”

The OP is quoting me without attribution.

Yes they can, if one understands what 'equality' and 'liberty' meant in the D of I.