Roosevelt: His Bankrupt Policies

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

SO, ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU BELIEVE A DOWNTURN IS A DOWNTURN. THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 WAS A HUGE DEAL, ME BOY. A GREAT DEPRESSION BASED ON A CRIPPLING LACK OR AGGREGATE DEMAND. AND IT WAS A 25% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DEPRESSION, LARGEST IN OUT HISTORY.
THE RECESSION OF THE EVERY EARLY 1920'S WAS A SIMPLE END OF A WORLD WAR RECESSION, NO PROBLEM WITH AGGREGATE DEMAND. IT WAS AN ISSUE OF DEFLATION, WHEN TONS OF PRODUCTION Was STILL THERE AND THE PRICES DECREASED FOR A BIT. AND IT WAS A DEPRESSION THAT OCCURRED THANKS TO THE FACT THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS RETURNED FROM WWI TO A USA WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JOBS FOR A WHILE. QUITE A NORMAL SORT OF THING. SO, YOU GOT A SHORT TERM DEFLATIONARY RECESSION, SHARP AND QUICK.
BUT THE REAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT WHY THE COOLIDGE POLICIES THAT WERE SO SUCCESSFUL IN THIS SHORT RECESSION WERE NOT USED IN THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 SHOWS YOUR TRUE IGNORANCE. ACTUALLY, COOLIDGE HAD NO POLICIES THAT WERE HELPFUL IN THE EARLY 1920'a depression. Because, me ignorant con troll, by the time coolidge took office the recession you refer to was OVER. By about a year.

When Socks Attack.

Not surprisingly you're way out of your league here. Starkey and I were discussing, and by discussing I mean Starkey was flinging one sentence worth of uneducated pooh and I was trying to get him to talk specifics on the difference between FDR Depression within an Depression in 1936-7 and the 1920-21 Recession when you suddenly decided you have to rush to his defense and go completely off target.

Do you have an answer as to what was different between 1936-7 and 1920-21?

 

[JakeStarkey]

CrusaderFrank now attacks members personally because he has lost the discussion.

The situation of 1920 to 1922 was completely different than 1929 to 1936 and 1936 to 1940.

One had pent up consumer demand with fully tooled factories and a work force willing and able to buy.

The other did not.

One era's conservative legislation, while slowing down the expansion in the early 1920s, did not seriously damage it. The other era's economic legislation in the second half of the thirties increased UE by 25%.

Those facts are what enrages Frank and leads to his personal attacks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CrusaderFrank now attacks members personally because he has lost the discussion.

The situation of 1920 to 1922 was completely different than 1929 to 1936 and 1936 to 1940.

One had pent up consumer demand with fully tooled factories and a work force willing and able to buy.

The other did not.

One era's conservative legislation, while slowing down the expansion in the early 1920s, did not seriously damage it. The other era's economic legislation in the second half of the thirties increased UE by 25%.

Those facts are what enrages Frank and leads to his personal attacks.

Jack We're talking about America in the 20's, the Roaring 20's. You're claiming that Conservative legislation hampered record growth and prosperity in the 20's? I'll deal with the rest of your "points" after we clear that up

 

[JakeStarkey]

CrusaderFrank now attacks members personally because he has lost the discussion.

The situation of 1920 to 1922 was completely different than 1929 to 1936 and 1936 to 1940.

One had pent up consumer demand with fully tooled factories and a work force willing and able to buy.

The other did not.

One era's conservative legislation, while slowing down the expansion in the early 1920s, did not seriously damage it. The other era's economic legislation in the second half of the thirties increased UE by 25%.

Those facts are what enrages Frank and leads to his personal attacks.

Jack We're talking about America in the 20's, the Roaring 20's. You're claiming that Conservative legislation hampered record growth and prosperity in the 20's? I'll deal with the rest of your "points" after we clear that up

You are stuttering, Frank. I said did not seriously slow down the expansion in the early twenties, for the figures show that. It certainly did in the second half of the thirties.

 

[Rshermr]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

SO, ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU BELIEVE A DOWNTURN IS A DOWNTURN. THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 WAS A HUGE DEAL, ME BOY. A GREAT DEPRESSION BASED ON A CRIPPLING LACK OR AGGREGATE DEMAND. AND IT WAS A 25% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DEPRESSION, LARGEST IN OUT HISTORY.
THE RECESSION OF THE EVERY EARLY 1920'S WAS A SIMPLE END OF A WORLD WAR RECESSION, NO PROBLEM WITH AGGREGATE DEMAND. IT WAS AN ISSUE OF DEFLATION, WHEN TONS OF PRODUCTION Was STILL THERE AND THE PRICES DECREASED FOR A BIT. AND IT WAS A DEPRESSION THAT OCCURRED THANKS TO THE FACT THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS RETURNED FROM WWI TO A USA WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JOBS FOR A WHILE. QUITE A NORMAL SORT OF THING. SO, YOU GOT A SHORT TERM DEFLATIONARY RECESSION, SHARP AND QUICK.
BUT THE REAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT WHY THE COOLIDGE POLICIES THAT WERE SO SUCCESSFUL IN THIS SHORT RECESSION WERE NOT USED IN THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 SHOWS YOUR TRUE IGNORANCE. ACTUALLY, COOLIDGE HAD NO POLICIES THAT WERE HELPFUL IN THE EARLY 1920'a depression. Because, me ignorant con troll, by the time coolidge took office the recession you refer to was OVER. By about a year.

When Socks Attack.

Not surprisingly you're way out of your league here. Starkey and I were discussing, and by discussing I mean Starkey was flinging one sentence worth of uneducated pooh and I was trying to get him to talk specifics on the difference between FDR Depression within an Depression in 1936-7 and the 1920-21 Recession when you suddenly decided you have to rush to his defense and go completely off target.

Do you have an answer as to what was different between 1936-7 and 1920-21?

Yes. Though saying that there is any chance you would listen to rational discussion does not pass the giggle test.
First, saying there was any comparison between the two periods shows you have no understanding of economics, and particularly of recessions. As a con troll, you suggested that I am way out of my league. If you really believe that, you are simple, stupid, and crazy for asking your ignorant question.

But here you go. The 1936 through 1937 was a simple extension of the ongoing Great Depression of 1929. That recession was a extreme recession based on lack or aggregate demand. Note the word DEPRESSION. It was the period of the depression when FDR relented for one year on stimulus, in deference to the republicans then controlling congress. The result was an immediate increase in the unemployment rate through 1937, causing FDR to increase stimulus spending in 1938.
The 1920 recession was a very short term recession caused by price deflation, and returning soldiers from WWI. A simple and temporary steep recession, it took care of itself.

Differences thus included the cause (lack of aggregate demand, versus returning soldiers and price deflation).

The main thing is that there was a 1921 recession. The years 1936 through1937 was simply part of the Great Depression.

One was a short term recession that corrected itself, the other was a DEPRESSION, which saw unemployment going from 3% to 25% and NOT correcting itself in the 4 plus years for 1929 through 1933.

Said another way, the 1921 was a short term recession, the 1936-1937 increase in the ue rate was simply cons trying to change history. Lying, in other words.

It is kind of like the game you play with children where you ask which of these things is not like the other. There was VERY LITTLE SIMILARITY. Though cons have tried to say the 1937 setback was a separate recession, it was not. That is a simple lie made by simpletons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rshmerer, Frank won't read it through. He never went to any college, conservative or liberal. He does not know history, political philosophy, economics, etc. Everything he does not understand or dislikes, he calls "communism" while everything he likes is "conservatism."

Frank cannot grasp that the socio-geopolitical-economic framework in the America of the 1920s was not what was in the thirties. He literally does not grasp the importance of the differences, thus the importance of FDR's attempts at relief, reform, and recovery.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CrusaderFrank now attacks members personally because he has lost the discussion.

The situation of 1920 to 1922 was completely different than 1929 to 1936 and 1936 to 1940.

One had pent up consumer demand with fully tooled factories and a work force willing and able to buy.

The other did not.

One era's conservative legislation, while slowing down the expansion in the early 1920s, did not seriously damage it. The other era's economic legislation in the second half of the thirties increased UE by 25%.

Those facts are what enrages Frank and leads to his personal attacks.

Jack We're talking about America in the 20's, the Roaring 20's. You're claiming that Conservative legislation hampered record growth and prosperity in the 20's? I'll deal with the rest of your "points" after we clear that up

You are stuttering, Frank. I said did not seriously slow down the expansion in the early twenties, for the figures show that. It certainly did in the second half of the thirties.

Jake, GDP grew from 4,500 to 5,500 and unemployment averaged 3% from 1921 to 1928 under Harding and Coolidge.

Did you know that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank, for the eight time, the early twenties were different than the middle thirties.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

SO, ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU BELIEVE A DOWNTURN IS A DOWNTURN. THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 WAS A HUGE DEAL, ME BOY. A GREAT DEPRESSION BASED ON A CRIPPLING LACK OR AGGREGATE DEMAND. AND IT WAS A 25% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DEPRESSION, LARGEST IN OUT HISTORY.
THE RECESSION OF THE EVERY EARLY 1920'S WAS A SIMPLE END OF A WORLD WAR RECESSION, NO PROBLEM WITH AGGREGATE DEMAND. IT WAS AN ISSUE OF DEFLATION, WHEN TONS OF PRODUCTION Was STILL THERE AND THE PRICES DECREASED FOR A BIT. AND IT WAS A DEPRESSION THAT OCCURRED THANKS TO THE FACT THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS RETURNED FROM WWI TO A USA WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JOBS FOR A WHILE. QUITE A NORMAL SORT OF THING. SO, YOU GOT A SHORT TERM DEFLATIONARY RECESSION, SHARP AND QUICK.
BUT THE REAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT WHY THE COOLIDGE POLICIES THAT WERE SO SUCCESSFUL IN THIS SHORT RECESSION WERE NOT USED IN THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 SHOWS YOUR TRUE IGNORANCE. ACTUALLY, COOLIDGE HAD NO POLICIES THAT WERE HELPFUL IN THE EARLY 1920'a depression. Because, me ignorant con troll, by the time coolidge took office the recession you refer to was OVER. By about a year.

When Socks Attack.

Not surprisingly you're way out of your league here. Starkey and I were discussing, and by discussing I mean Starkey was flinging one sentence worth of uneducated pooh and I was trying to get him to talk specifics on the difference between FDR Depression within an Depression in 1936-7 and the 1920-21 Recession when you suddenly decided you have to rush to his defense and go completely off target.

Do you have an answer as to what was different between 1936-7 and 1920-21?

Yes. Though saying that there is any chance you would listen to rational discussion does not pass the giggle test.
First, saying there was any comparison between the two periods shows you have no understanding of economics, and particularly of recessions. As a con troll, you suggested that I am way out of my league. If you really believe that, you are simple, stupid, and crazy for asking your ignorant question.

But here you go. The 1936 through 1937 was a simple extension of the ongoing Great Depression of 1929. That recession was a extreme recession based on lack or aggregate demand. Note the word DEPRESSION. It was the period of the depression when FDR relented for one year on stimulus, in deference to the republicans then controlling congress. The result was an immediate increase in the unemployment rate through 1937, causing FDR to increase stimulus spending in 1938.
The 1920 recession was a very short term recession caused by price deflation, and returning soldiers from WWI. A simple and temporary steep recession, it took care of itself.

Differences thus included the cause (lack of aggregate demand, versus returning soldiers and price deflation).

The main thing is that there was a 1921 recession. The years 1936 through1937 was simply part of the Great Depression.

One was a short term recession that corrected itself, the other was a DEPRESSION, which saw unemployment going from 3% to 25% and NOT correcting itself in the 4 plus years for 1929 through 1933.

Said another way, the 1921 was a short term recession, the 1936-1937 increase in the ue rate was simply cons trying to change history. Lying, in other words.

It is kind of like the game you play with children where you ask which of these things is not like the other. There was VERY LITTLE SIMILARITY. Though cons have tried to say the 1937 setback was a separate recession, it was not. That is a simple lie made by simpletons.

Cutting and pasting from Google is truly impressive.

This is what happens when you have Presidents who will stand aside and not try to prove they're smarter than the markets. - 3% unemployment

When you get Presidents like Hoover and FDR, who are convinced they are smarter than the markets, you get a Great Depression - 20% unemployment

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, for the eight time, the early twenties were different than the middle thirties.

Absolutely! They were different because Progressives were running the country into the dirt in the 30's and couldn't admit they were failing miserably

 

[Rshermr]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

SO, ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU BELIEVE A DOWNTURN IS A DOWNTURN. THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 WAS A HUGE DEAL, ME BOY. A GREAT DEPRESSION BASED ON A CRIPPLING LACK OR AGGREGATE DEMAND. AND IT WAS A 25% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DEPRESSION, LARGEST IN OUT HISTORY.
THE RECESSION OF THE EVERY EARLY 1920'S WAS A SIMPLE END OF A WORLD WAR RECESSION, NO PROBLEM WITH AGGREGATE DEMAND. IT WAS AN ISSUE OF DEFLATION, WHEN TONS OF PRODUCTION Was STILL THERE AND THE PRICES DECREASED FOR A BIT. AND IT WAS A DEPRESSION THAT OCCURRED THANKS TO THE FACT THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS RETURNED FROM WWI TO A USA WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JOBS FOR A WHILE. QUITE A NORMAL SORT OF THING. SO, YOU GOT A SHORT TERM DEFLATIONARY RECESSION, SHARP AND QUICK.
BUT THE REAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT WHY THE COOLIDGE POLICIES THAT WERE SO SUCCESSFUL IN THIS SHORT RECESSION WERE NOT USED IN THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 SHOWS YOUR TRUE IGNORANCE. ACTUALLY, COOLIDGE HAD NO POLICIES THAT WERE HELPFUL IN THE EARLY 1920'a depression. Because, me ignorant con troll, by the time coolidge took office the recession you refer to was OVER. By about a year.

When Socks Attack.

Not surprisingly you're way out of your league here. Starkey and I were discussing, and by discussing I mean Starkey was flinging one sentence worth of uneducated pooh and I was trying to get him to talk specifics on the difference between FDR Depression within an Depression in 1936-7 and the 1920-21 Recession when you suddenly decided you have to rush to his defense and go completely off target.

Do you have an answer as to what was different between 1936-7 and 1920-21?

Yes. Though saying that there is any chance you would listen to rational discussion does not pass the giggle test.
First, saying there was any comparison between the two periods shows you have no understanding of economics, and particularly of recessions. As a con troll, you suggested that I am way out of my league. If you really believe that, you are simple, stupid, and crazy for asking your ignorant question.

But here you go. The 1936 through 1937 was a simple extension of the ongoing Great Depression of 1929. That recession was a extreme recession based on lack or aggregate demand. Note the word DEPRESSION. It was the period of the depression when FDR relented for one year on stimulus, in deference to the republicans then controlling congress. The result was an immediate increase in the unemployment rate through 1937, causing FDR to increase stimulus spending in 1938.
The 1920 recession was a very short term recession caused by price deflation, and returning soldiers from WWI. A simple and temporary steep recession, it took care of itself.

Differences thus included the cause (lack of aggregate demand, versus returning soldiers and price deflation).

The main thing is that there was a 1921 recession. The years 1936 through1937 was simply part of the Great Depression.

One was a short term recession that corrected itself, the other was a DEPRESSION, which saw unemployment going from 3% to 25% and NOT correcting itself in the 4 plus years for 1929 through 1933.

Said another way, the 1921 was a short term recession, the 1936-1937 increase in the ue rate was simply cons trying to change history. Lying, in other words.

It is kind of like the game you play with children where you ask which of these things is not like the other. There was VERY LITTLE SIMILARITY. Though cons have tried to say the 1937 setback was a separate recession, it was not. That is a simple lie made by simpletons.

Cutting and pasting from Google is truly impressive.
I do not cut and paste from google. But what is not impressive is when some clown with no credentials and no staff and no knowledge posts things without any knowledge. Like that famous dipshit, Crusader Frank.

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
This is what happens when you have Presidents who will stand aside and not try to prove they're smarter than the markets. - 3% unemployment. Not much problem at 3%, but the idea of standing aside while the ue rate went to 25% was a really, really stupid idea. And that did indeed show what happens.

When you get Presidents like Hoover and FDR, who are convinced they are smarter than the markets, you get a Great Depression - 20% unemployment

But you lie. Nothing much happened between 1929 and 1933. No stimulus at all. And you saw the highest increase and fastest increase in the ue rate in the history of the US. Kind of makes your comments ignorant, eh. But, the ue rate dropped fast between 1933 and 1941. Fastest decrease in history. And that did indeed include lots of gov intervention. So, lets recap, me boy:
1929-1933 No gov intervention UE increase of 19%
1934-1941 Major gov Stimulus UE DECREASE of 15%
Really, cf, no matter how hard you try to rewrite history, history is history.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

SO, ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU BELIEVE A DOWNTURN IS A DOWNTURN. THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 WAS A HUGE DEAL, ME BOY. A GREAT DEPRESSION BASED ON A CRIPPLING LACK OR AGGREGATE DEMAND. AND IT WAS A 25% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DEPRESSION, LARGEST IN OUT HISTORY.
THE RECESSION OF THE EVERY EARLY 1920'S WAS A SIMPLE END OF A WORLD WAR RECESSION, NO PROBLEM WITH AGGREGATE DEMAND. IT WAS AN ISSUE OF DEFLATION, WHEN TONS OF PRODUCTION Was STILL THERE AND THE PRICES DECREASED FOR A BIT. AND IT WAS A DEPRESSION THAT OCCURRED THANKS TO THE FACT THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS RETURNED FROM WWI TO A USA WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JOBS FOR A WHILE. QUITE A NORMAL SORT OF THING. SO, YOU GOT A SHORT TERM DEFLATIONARY RECESSION, SHARP AND QUICK.
BUT THE REAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT WHY THE COOLIDGE POLICIES THAT WERE SO SUCCESSFUL IN THIS SHORT RECESSION WERE NOT USED IN THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 SHOWS YOUR TRUE IGNORANCE. ACTUALLY, COOLIDGE HAD NO POLICIES THAT WERE HELPFUL IN THE EARLY 1920'a depression. Because, me ignorant con troll, by the time coolidge took office the recession you refer to was OVER. By about a year.

When Socks Attack.

Not surprisingly you're way out of your league here. Starkey and I were discussing, and by discussing I mean Starkey was flinging one sentence worth of uneducated pooh and I was trying to get him to talk specifics on the difference between FDR Depression within an Depression in 1936-7 and the 1920-21 Recession when you suddenly decided you have to rush to his defense and go completely off target.

Do you have an answer as to what was different between 1936-7 and 1920-21?

Yes. Though saying that there is any chance you would listen to rational discussion does not pass the giggle test.
First, saying there was any comparison between the two periods shows you have no understanding of economics, and particularly of recessions. As a con troll, you suggested that I am way out of my league. If you really believe that, you are simple, stupid, and crazy for asking your ignorant question.

But here you go. The 1936 through 1937 was a simple extension of the ongoing Great Depression of 1929. That recession was a extreme recession based on lack or aggregate demand. Note the word DEPRESSION. It was the period of the depression when FDR relented for one year on stimulus, in deference to the republicans then controlling congress. The result was an immediate increase in the unemployment rate through 1937, causing FDR to increase stimulus spending in 1938.
The 1920 recession was a very short term recession caused by price deflation, and returning soldiers from WWI. A simple and temporary steep recession, it took care of itself.

Differences thus included the cause (lack of aggregate demand, versus returning soldiers and price deflation).

The main thing is that there was a 1921 recession. The years 1936 through1937 was simply part of the Great Depression.

One was a short term recession that corrected itself, the other was a DEPRESSION, which saw unemployment going from 3% to 25% and NOT correcting itself in the 4 plus years for 1929 through 1933.

Said another way, the 1921 was a short term recession, the 1936-1937 increase in the ue rate was simply cons trying to change history. Lying, in other words.

It is kind of like the game you play with children where you ask which of these things is not like the other. There was VERY LITTLE SIMILARITY. Though cons have tried to say the 1937 setback was a separate recession, it was not. That is a simple lie made by simpletons.

Cutting and pasting from Google is truly impressive.
I do not cut and paste from google. But what is not impressive is when some clown with no credentials and no staff and no knowledge posts things without any knowledge. Like that famous dipshit, Crusader Frank.

[/QUOTE]
This is what happens when you have Presidents who will stand aside and not try to prove they're smarter than the markets. - 3% unemployment. Not much problem at 3%, but the idea of standing aside while the ue rate went to 25% was a really, really stupid idea. And that did indeed show what happens.

When you get Presidents like Hoover and FDR, who are convinced they are smarter than the markets, you get a Great Depression - 20% unemployment

But you lie. Nothing much happened between 1929 and 1933. No stimulus at all. And you saw the highest increase and fastest increase in the ue rate in the history of the US. Kind of makes your comments ignorant, eh. But, the ue rate dropped fast between 1933 and 1941. Fastest decrease in history. And that did indeed include lots of gov intervention. So, lets recap, me boy:
1929-1933 No gov intervention UE increase of 19%
1934-1941 Major gov Stimulus UE DECREASE of 15%
Really, cf, no matter how hard you try to rewrite history, history is history.[/QUOTE]

And by "1929-1933 No gov intervention UE increase of 19%" did you mean the Federal Reserve sucking out 1/3 of the money supply?

Did you count that -- at all?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I told you that Frank does not understand, Rshemer.

Do you believe me now?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I told you that Frank does not understand, Rshemer.

Do you believe me now?

Jake, thinks he's clever but he's in way over his pointy head.

I know it.

He knows it.

He's trying to tell us 2 terms of 20% Unemployment is superior to 2 terms of 3% UE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I told you that Frank does not understand, Rshemer.

Do you believe me now?

Jake, thinks he's clever but he's in way over his pointy head.

I know it.

He knows it.

He's trying to tell us 2 terms of 20% Unemployment is superior to 2 terms of 3% UE.

I am telling you what did not hurt the economy in 1921 severely hurt it in 1936 and 1937, because the situations were different. Frank cannot think clearly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I told you that Frank does not understand, Rshemer.

Do you believe me now?

Jake, thinks he's clever but he's in way over his pointy head.

I know it.

He knows it.

He's trying to tell us 2 terms of 20% Unemployment is superior to 2 terms of 3% UE.

I am telling you what did not hurt the economy in 1921 severely hurt it in 1936 and 1937, because the situations were different. Frank cannot think clearly.

Jake,

1920-21: No government intervention. 3% Unemployment 2 terms -- The Roaring 20's

1929-1940: Massive, unprecedented government Jihad on the Free Enterprise. Worst economy in human history, worse than the 7 Biblical lean Years

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank, the socio-economic-geopolitical situations were different. Do you understand?

You cannot critically think, can you?

You are guilty of a fallacy of false equivalences. The situations are different not equivalent.

 

[Rshermr]

I told you that Frank does not understand, Rshemer.

Do you believe me now?

Yup. You have that right. But con trolls like cf tend to just believe and post con talking points. Makes it simpler for their simple minds. Actually, con troll and does not understand is redundant.

 

[Rshermr]

I told you that Frank does not understand, Rshemer.

Do you believe me now?

Jake, thinks he's clever but he's in way over his pointy head.

I know it.

He knows it.

He's trying to tell us 2 terms of 20% Unemployment is superior to 2 terms of 3% UE.

I am telling you what did not hurt the economy in 1921 severely hurt it in 1936 and 1937, because the situations were different. Frank cannot think clearly.

Jake,

1920-21: No government intervention. 3% Unemployment 2 terms -- The Roaring 20's

1929-1940: Massive, unprecedented government Jihad on the Free Enterprise. Worst economy in human history, worse than the 7 Biblical lean Years

Jesus, CF, Does being that stupid hurt? There have been many times with little unemployment. And when that is the case, no intervention is required. But when things go crazy, as they did in 1929, in what has become known as the Great Republican Depression of 1929, you have two options. 1. Do something about it. Or, 2. Do nothing about it annd watch a depression occur. Worst unemployment in US history.
Then, as a republican troll, blame it on the president you hand the shit over to. Do not try to understand anything, because you are too stupid. And complain about the fastest recovery in US history.

Then, as a con troll, continue to blame those not in office when it happened, and prove you are butt stupid.
got it. You are butt stupid, and incapable of rational conversation. You are indeed incapable of thought. I have an econ degree. You would be laughed out. You want to start a new econ agenda. Try Regent University. It would like your delusion.

 

[Rshermr]

Frank, the socio-economic-geopolitical situations were different. Do you understand?

You cannot critically think, can you?

You are guilty of a fallacy of false equivalences. The situations are different not equivalent.

Poor dumb bastard. Probably a congenital idiot. He has no understanding of economics. And he thinks all recessions are alike. Jesus, he must be in pain.

Then, he actually thinks that fixing a depression is causing a depression. Poor stupid guy. But it is probably congenital. So, not his fault. Just plain bad luck.