Oddball
Unobtanium Member
They were tag-team partners.
Mad Dog Höek and Killer Kadugan.
Mad Dog Höek and Killer Kadugan.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not ignoring the growth under FDR, I'm saying that his greatness was the institutionalization of the Progressive agenda (Central Planning, Central Bank) and not because he was an economic miracle worker, rescuing free enterprise from itself (sounds like Dubya)
I'm not ignoring the growth under FDR, I'm saying that his greatness was the institutionalization of the Progressive agenda (Central Planning, Central Bank) and not because he was an economic miracle worker, rescuing free enterprise from itself (sounds like Dubya)
Well, for someone attempting to claim FDR's "greatness" was "institutionalization of the progressive agenda", you've sure wasted a lot of bytes attempting to deny the success of his economic plan.
I'm not ignoring the growth under FDR, I'm saying that his greatness was the institutionalization of the Progressive agenda (Central Planning, Central Bank) and not because he was an economic miracle worker, rescuing free enterprise from itself (sounds like Dubya)
Well, for someone attempting to claim FDR's "greatness" was "institutionalization of the progressive agenda", you've sure wasted a lot of bytes attempting to deny the success of his economic plan.
You're not getting it, I totally dispute the notion that fundamentally altering the constitution of the US economy for a 2% annual reduction in unemployment defines greatness.
The banking system stabilized because he declared a bank holiday. Dead people are stable too.
FDR's policies contributed to the length of the depression, they did not cure it. And repudiating those policies in 1946 insured that another depression would not recur, which had been the fear.
Well, for someone attempting to claim FDR's "greatness" was "institutionalization of the progressive agenda", you've sure wasted a lot of bytes attempting to deny the success of his economic plan.
You're not getting it, I totally dispute the notion that fundamentally altering the constitution of the US economy for a 2% annual reduction in unemployment defines greatness.
Frank, i don't care what you "totally dispute". FDR took over an economy that was losing 10-12% of it's productive value every year, an economy with no working financial system, 4000 failing banks and no means by which to efficiently convert savings to investment, an economy where over 1 in 4 people were out of work.
Within WEEKS of his first piece of legislative agenda, the financial system stabilized and savings were able to channel into productive investment. the economy started to grow at a record pace for four straight years. the unemployment rate was reduced by 40%. The economy grew across virtually every sector, from construction to service to manufacturing.
We had no working financial system, because as I've stated previously the Fed all but engineered a collapse of our banking system, sucking money OUT of the system, and raising discount rates at a time when banks needed liquidity and stability.
The central banking system, set up primarily to render impossible the restriction of payments by commercial banks, itself joined the commercial banks in a more widespread, complete and economically disturbing restriction of payments than had ever been experienced in the history of the country. One can certainly sympathize with President Hoovers comment about that episode: I concluded the Reserve Board was indeed a weak reed for a nation to lean on in time of trouble. -- Milton Friedman
FDR used this collapse to have the government step in and begin taking over the US banking industry.
The banking system stabilized because he declared a bank holiday. Dead people are stable too.
Can you explain how a bank holiday magically recapitalized banks?
FDR's policies contributed to the length of the depression, they did not cure it. And repudiating those policies in 1946 insured that another depression would not recur, which had been the fear.
So you can't explain the fact that the economy started growing as soon as FDR's first agenda items were passed, and continued to do so at record pace - across virtually all sectors - for four straight years?
The banking system stabilized because he declared a bank holiday. Dead people are stable too.
Can you explain how a bank holiday magically recapitalized banks?
FDR's policies contributed to the length of the depression, they did not cure it. And repudiating those policies in 1946 insured that another depression would not recur, which had been the fear.
So you can't explain the fact that the economy started growing as soon as FDR's first agenda items were passed, and continued to do so at record pace - across virtually all sectors - for four straight years?
The economy did not start growing. GDP grew because of massive governemnt spending (sound familiar??). Business investment remained tepid until the war.
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2006/08August/0806_GDP_NIPAs.pdf
Had FDR been a Republican . . .
Had FDR been a Republican . . .
Hoover was a Republican you noob shit... And he was like FDR, and a moron.
Had FDR been a Republican . . .
Hoover was a Republican you noob shit... And he was like FDR, and a moron.
Duh.
Everyone knows he was a republican.
And a fuck up, just like you.
What I think Frank is asking is when did FDRs policies actually get the US out of the GD? He is not asking if massive Government spending brought down the UE rate or if it made the GDP grow, we know that Government spending can do these things. We also understand that Government spending like we have seen with Hoover/FDR and now Bush/Obama has consequences, you get a lower UE rate but only because of Government jobs, however the privet sector shrinks.
At some point Government wont be able to sustain itself employing so many people and has to start defunding these jobs. When Government pulls the funds for jobs created by Government you see what happened at one point under FDR and thats an instant rescission and a huge spike in unemployment. Without Government, it would seem no healing occurred.
So Franks question, to me is When did FDRs polices strengthen the US economy enough that without being floated, propped up, subsidized or whatever you like to call that, without Government intervention of some sort did the country and economy make it on its own.
To me you cant say You broke your leg, but we put a cast on it, go play football because youre good as new! At what point did FDR heal the country and economy so that it could run on its own?
What I think Frank is asking is when did FDR’s policies actually get the US out of the GD?
He is not asking if massive Government spending brought down the UE rate or if it made the GDP grow, we know that Government spending can do these things. We also understand that Government spending like we have seen with Hoover/FDR and now Bush/Obama has consequences, you get a lower UE rate but only because of Government jobs, however the privet sector shrinks.
When Government pulls the funds for “jobs created by Government” you see what happened at one point under FDR and that’s an instant rescission and a huge spike in unemployment. Without Government, it would seem no “healing” occurred.
What I think Frank is asking is when did FDR’s policies actually get the US out of the GD?
They helped foster the end of two recessions almost immediately by bringing order and stability to the financial sector. "The Depression" was actually two recessions with a record period of growth in the intervening years.
He is not asking if massive Government spending brought down the UE rate or if it made the GDP grow, we know that Government spending can do these things. We also understand that Government spending like we have seen with Hoover/FDR and now Bush/Obama has consequences, you get a lower UE rate but only because of Government jobs, however the privet sector shrinks.
The private sector did not shrink after FDR took office. It expanded- dramatically. the growth in GDP was across all sectors, private and public.
When Government pulls the funds for “jobs created by Government” you see what happened at one point under FDR and that’s an instant rescission and a huge spike in unemployment. Without Government, it would seem no “healing” occurred.
We had a recession in 37/38 because most New Deal programs were ended and FDR was convinced to focus on "fiscal discipline."
When did the GD end due to FDR's policies? "Fixed," not floated.
You described Government intervention and at the very end cited the 37/38 crash... It crashed because the privet sector was relatively small because near all the growth under FDR was Government jobs or in the some of the privet sectors unique situation of being falsely affected by Government, IE agriculture, meaning without Governement money/rules these markets that grew would crash as well.
You'd have to explain what you mean by "taking care of itself."So, when was the US and the economy able to take care of itself? Obviously not by 1937/38... So when?