US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[edthecynic]

The people who UC claims ran out are still not counted

That's a lie!

 

[Rshermr]

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Well, me boy, hardly fact. The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing. Not a aggregate demand based recession. It was a simple downturn that cured itself pretty much before anyone noticed it. It was looked at by economists as an adjustment after WWI.
Now here is the thing. What harding did was, as you say, nothing. the Fed helped some, but had to do little.
Now the Great Republican Depression of 1929 was something quite different. It did not come and go in 18 months. It was indeed a aggregate demand depression.
And, the new president in power, Hoover, Tried the Harding methodology. You love it, of course. It is called DO NOTHING. Problem was, while harding was faced with an end of war adjustment, Hoover had a fully created no shit depression. And he sat and watched as the ue rate went from around 3.5% to 25%. LIKE A ROCKET. He watched as people starved, me boy. It was desperation time. Even he, in the end of his term, sent bills to congress to provide stimulus. You know, what economists who are not brain dead suggest. And those stimulus requests were the basis of what happened over the next several years.

Wow...here are your words: "Well, me boy, hardly fact. The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing."

So now a DEPRESSION is an odd little thing when handled correctly, BUT the 2008 RECESSION, handled abysmally... is the fault of President Bush, eight years later when we have yet to recover.

Not at all. Depressions are a fairly large deal. But this was a recession, me boy. No one, except a few conservative nut cases, cal this anomaly a depression. And, it does not meet the general requirements. It was1. Much too short, lasting under 18 months and 2. Unemployment rates were way short of depression levels. In addition, the decrease in GNP was relatively small, way short of depression levels.

The Causes of the Recession of 1920–1921

O’Brien (1997) and Samuelson (1943: 47–50) present some useful analysis of the causes of the recession of 1920–1921, the US downturn that lasted from January 1920 to July 1921 (or for some 18 months).

First, I summarise the arguments of O’Brien.

According to O’Brien, the short recession beginning in August 1918 appears to have been the result of conversion from wartime to peacetime production, and only lasted 7 months (O’Brien 1997: 151).

The mildness of this recession and the mild deflation appear to have boosted business and consumer confidence (O’Brien 1997: 152).

The increased confidence, together with the pent up demand for consumption goods and capital goods, led in 1919 to a boom in residential construction, fixed investment and automobiles (O’Brien 1997: 152).

What set off the recession in 1920 was the following factors1) early in 1920 there were declines in sales, particularly textile products and iron and steel;

(2) continued cuts to government spending and government purchases in 1919;

(3) exports declined by 20% between the 1st and 2nd quarters of 1920;

(4) the Federal Reserve raised discounts rates to 4.75% in late 1919, and then 6% in early 1920. The New York Federal Reserve even raised its discount rate to 7% on 1 June, 1920. This caused a contraction in business and consumer credit, and

(5) since many businesses had accumulated raw materials and intermediate goods in the expectation of further inflation, when the recession struck they suffered heavy losses and in order to reduce inventory they cut production sharply (O’Brien 1997: 152).Thus a major part of the recession was a contraction in business investment and production to liquidate excess inventory.

To this extent, 1920–1921 was somewhat like post-1945 “inventory” recessions, in which contractions were partly the result of previous and excessive inventory accumulation and then the subsequent liquidation of this stock (Sorkin 1997: 569).

Next, we turn to Samuelson. According to Samuelson (1943: 47–50), demobilisation was largely finished by the first half of 1919, and one year after the armistice of November 1918 4 million men had been discharged (Samuelson 1943: 47).

As an aside, we can note that unemployment was already rising in 1919, as can be seen in the graph below (from Weir’s [1992] unemployment estimates).



So the rise in unemployment in 1920 and 1921 came on top of the previous unemployment caused by demobilisation.

Samuelson (1943: 48–49) further argues that the boom of 1919 was very much dependent on continued government spending, even if that spending was falling.

Just as O’Brien, Samuelson emphasises the role of business confidence and inventory accumulation in 1919:“Not knowing the troublesome times ahead, the private business community greeted peace with optimism. As the spring of 1919 wore on, sales increased in retail lines such as clothing for returning soldiers, household goods, etc. With the removal of price controls, the wholesale price index began to rise, in the end soaring from the final war level of around 200, on a prewar base, to almost 250. This set off a wave of inventory accumulation, or attempted accumulation, which formed a substantial fraction of total offsets to savings; and the paper increase in inventory values was considerably greater.

From its nature this was an unhealthy base upon which to erect a boom. Price increases led to attempted inventory accumulation, further accentuating the price increases. But it was not enough for prices to stay at these abnormal levels; once they ceased to rise, or leveled off, the whole structure had to collapse.” (Samuelson 1943: 49).So both O’Brien and Samuelson have a broadly similar story on the cause of the recession of 1920–1921.

Further research has explained the nature of the recession itself. It was an anomalous recession. Real output contraction only became severe after July 1920 (Vernon 1991: 573), and Vernon (1991: 575) points out that even the large rise in unemployment in 1920 is to be explained to some extent by the continued effects of the previous demobilisation and increased immigration in 1920 and 1921.

Romer (1988: 97–99) argues that total consumption from 1920 to 1921 actually increased, not fell, because, even though consumer expenditures on durable goods contracted, expenditures on nondurables and services increased to make up for the shortfall.

Finally, there is still disagreement about the depth of the recession.

Romer (1989) provided a new estimate for GNP declines from 1920 to 1921, as follows:Year | GNP* | Growth Rate
1914 | $414.599
1915 | $443.048 | 6.86%
1916 | $476.498 | 7.54%
1917 | $473.896 | -0.54%
1918 | $498.458 | 5.18%
1919 | $503.873 | 1.08%
1920 | $498.132 | -1.13%
1921 | $486.377 | -2.35%
1922 | $514.949 | 5.87%
1923 | $583.105 | 13.23%
* Billions of 1982 dollars
(Romer 1989: 23).These estimates show a GNP contraction of only 3.47% from 1919 to 1921, a mild to moderate recession.

By contrast, Balke and Gordon (1989: 84–85) estimate a GNP decline of 5.58% from 1920–1921, a moderately bad recession.

On either of these estimates, however, the downturn of 1920 to 1921 was nothing like the Great Depression, and it still appears to be an anomaly.

I understand why you are making the argument that it was a depression. It is the fully discredited argument of Libertarians. But, me boy, you are simply wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State? You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one! Duh?

Who am I going to believe about global warming the scientists employed by corporations that pollute or the other 97% who aren't paid to lie.

If the fed reserve is corrupt I wouldn't believe the guys who run it

You're joking, are you not? The 97% is BOGUS and any of them are PAID TO LIE. No Global Warming Scam, NO MONEY FOR BOGUS RESEARCH.

Oh, absolutely. Do not believe scientists. They try to provide facts. Believe republican politicians, paid by the energy industry. Now, why would they want to lie. Like rugs. And no, me poor stupid con tool, the 97% is a true number.

I would love to have a green yes or no on the ballot. Put this debate to bed once and for all

 

[Oldstyle]

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Well, me boy, hardly fact. The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing. Not a aggregate demand based recession. It was a simple downturn that cured itself pretty much before anyone noticed it. It was looked at by economists as an adjustment after WWI.
Now here is the thing. What harding did was, as you say, nothing. the Fed helped some, but had to do little.
Now the Great Republican Depression of 1929 was something quite different. It did not come and go in 18 months. It was indeed a aggregate demand depression.
And, the new president in power, Hoover, Tried the Harding methodology. You love it, of course. It is called DO NOTHING. Problem was, while harding was faced with an end of war adjustment, Hoover had a fully created no shit depression. And he sat and watched as the ue rate went from around 3.5% to 25%. LIKE A ROCKET. He watched as people starved, me boy. It was desperation time. Even he, in the end of his term, sent bills to congress to provide stimulus. You know, what economists who are not brain dead suggest. And those stimulus requests were the basis of what happened over the next several years.

Wow...here are your words: "Well, me boy, hardly fact. The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing."

So now a DEPRESSION is an odd little thing when handled correctly, BUT the 2008 RECESSION, handled abysmally... is the fault of President Bush, eight years later when we have yet to recover.

Not at all. Depressions are a fairly large deal. But this was a recession, me boy. No one, except a few conservative nut cases, cal this anomaly a depression. And, it does not meet the general requirements. It was1. Much too short, lasting under 18 months and 2. Unemployment rates were way short of depression levels. In addition, the decrease in GNP was relatively small, way short of depression levels.

The Causes of the Recession of 1920–1921

O’Brien (1997) and Samuelson (1943: 47–50) present some useful analysis of the causes of the recession of 1920–1921, the US downturn that lasted from January 1920 to July 1921 (or for some 18 months).

First, I summarise the arguments of O’Brien.

According to O’Brien, the short recession beginning in August 1918 appears to have been the result of conversion from wartime to peacetime production, and only lasted 7 months (O’Brien 1997: 151).

The mildness of this recession and the mild deflation appear to have boosted business and consumer confidence (O’Brien 1997: 152).

The increased confidence, together with the pent up demand for consumption goods and capital goods, led in 1919 to a boom in residential construction, fixed investment and automobiles (O’Brien 1997: 152).

What set off the recession in 1920 was the following factors1) early in 1920 there were declines in sales, particularly textile products and iron and steel;

(2) continued cuts to government spending and government purchases in 1919;

(3) exports declined by 20% between the 1st and 2nd quarters of 1920;

(4) the Federal Reserve raised discounts rates to 4.75% in late 1919, and then 6% in early 1920. The New York Federal Reserve even raised its discount rate to 7% on 1 June, 1920. This caused a contraction in business and consumer credit, and

(5) since many businesses had accumulated raw materials and intermediate goods in the expectation of further inflation, when the recession struck they suffered heavy losses and in order to reduce inventory they cut production sharply (O’Brien 1997: 152).Thus a major part of the recession was a contraction in business investment and production to liquidate excess inventory.

To this extent, 1920–1921 was somewhat like post-1945 “inventory” recessions, in which contractions were partly the result of previous and excessive inventory accumulation and then the subsequent liquidation of this stock (Sorkin 1997: 569).

Next, we turn to Samuelson. According to Samuelson (1943: 47–50), demobilisation was largely finished by the first half of 1919, and one year after the armistice of November 1918 4 million men had been discharged (Samuelson 1943: 47).

As an aside, we can note that unemployment was already rising in 1919, as can be seen in the graph below (from Weir’s [1992] unemployment estimates).



So the rise in unemployment in 1920 and 1921 came on top of the previous unemployment caused by demobilisation.

Samuelson (1943: 48–49) further argues that the boom of 1919 was very much dependent on continued government spending, even if that spending was falling.

Just as O’Brien, Samuelson emphasises the role of business confidence and inventory accumulation in 1919:“Not knowing the troublesome times ahead, the private business community greeted peace with optimism. As the spring of 1919 wore on, sales increased in retail lines such as clothing for returning soldiers, household goods, etc. With the removal of price controls, the wholesale price index began to rise, in the end soaring from the final war level of around 200, on a prewar base, to almost 250. This set off a wave of inventory accumulation, or attempted accumulation, which formed a substantial fraction of total offsets to savings; and the paper increase in inventory values was considerably greater.

From its nature this was an unhealthy base upon which to erect a boom. Price increases led to attempted inventory accumulation, further accentuating the price increases. But it was not enough for prices to stay at these abnormal levels; once they ceased to rise, or leveled off, the whole structure had to collapse.” (Samuelson 1943: 49).So both O’Brien and Samuelson have a broadly similar story on the cause of the recession of 1920–1921.

Further research has explained the nature of the recession itself. It was an anomalous recession. Real output contraction only became severe after July 1920 (Vernon 1991: 573), and Vernon (1991: 575) points out that even the large rise in unemployment in 1920 is to be explained to some extent by the continued effects of the previous demobilisation and increased immigration in 1920 and 1921.

Romer (1988: 97–99) argues that total consumption from 1920 to 1921 actually increased, not fell, because, even though consumer expenditures on durable goods contracted, expenditures on nondurables and services increased to make up for the shortfall.

Finally, there is still disagreement about the depth of the recession.

Romer (1989) provided a new estimate for GNP declines from 1920 to 1921, as follows:Year | GNP* | Growth Rate
1914 | $414.599
1915 | $443.048 | 6.86%
1916 | $476.498 | 7.54%
1917 | $473.896 | -0.54%
1918 | $498.458 | 5.18%
1919 | $503.873 | 1.08%
1920 | $498.132 | -1.13%
1921 | $486.377 | -2.35%
1922 | $514.949 | 5.87%
1923 | $583.105 | 13.23%
* Billions of 1982 dollars
(Romer 1989: 23).These estimates show a GNP contraction of only 3.47% from 1919 to 1921, a mild to moderate recession.

By contrast, Balke and Gordon (1989: 84–85) estimate a GNP decline of 5.58% from 1920–1921, a moderately bad recession.

On either of these estimates, however, the downturn of 1920 to 1921 was nothing like the Great Depression, and it still appears to be an anomaly.

I understand why you are making the argument that it was a depression. It is the fully discredited argument of Libertarians. But, me boy, you are simply wrong.

"Depressions are a fairly large deal."

Every time Rshermr tries to post something related to economics...he makes such a total ass of himself with comments like THAT one...that all you can do is laugh at him! Depressions are a fairly large deal? REALLY? It's like having Forrest Gump come in and give a lecture on economics!

 

[Oldstyle]

You would think that an economics major like Rshermr would know that there is no official definition of what constitutes a "Depression" and that there are no prescribed "levels" of duration, unemployment or GNP that mean a depression is taking place. Of course when you're simply posing as an economics major...as the George Costanza of our board loves to do...then you wouldn't have a clue that was the case!

 

[Faun]

I understand that you and ed would be a pair. But buddies, no doubt. Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.

Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie? I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks? So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how? Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes?

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks. That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Thanks for the fringe rightwing view.

Claiming FDR extended the Great Depression by seven years, which is almost as long as it lasted under FDR, the same as saying he should have been able to end it when he entered office, which with negative 13 percent GDP and 24 percent unemployment, is beyond retarded.

But then you revealed just how retarded you are when you claimed the 1921 depression was just as bad, if not worse, than the Great Depression. Here, in reality, the Great Depression was far worse. GDP bottomed out at -13%, compared to -7% in 1921. Unemployment reached about 24%, compared to about 12% in 1921.

 

[Faun]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

 

[Rshermr]

Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie? I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks? So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how? Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes?

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks. That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Thanks for the fringe rightwing view.

Claiming FDR extended the Great Depression by seven years, which is almost as long as it lasted under FDR, the same as saying he should have been able to end it when he entered office, which with negative 13 percent GDP and 24 percent unemployment, is beyond retarded.

But then you revealed just how retarded you are when you claimed the 1921 depression was just as bad, if not worse, than the Great Depression. Here, in reality, the Great Depression was far worse. GDP bottomed out at -13%, compared to -7% in 1921. Unemployment reached about 24%, compared to about 12% in 1921.

Only a very few loons, and economists trying to make names for themselves, buy this argument. Truth is, of several thousand economists, most have strong views on the Great Republican Depression of 1929. And the vast majority of those economists see the 1921 recession as just that. A recession mostly caused by hundreds of thousands of soldiers returning to the US looking for jobs. And some price pressure on some commodities. But to say it was worse than the Great Republican Depression of 1929 simply proves that the person making the claim is an idiot. Or, in a few cases, trying to make a name for themselves.
But where the rubber meets the road is how the downturns were treated. With the 1921 recession, nothing was needed, and it started getting better in 12 months and was completely over in 18 months. It was, largely a big business cycle with the complication of the end of a world war.
With the great republican depression, however, the same treatment of NO Government Action of any kind for over 4 years had a different result. Even congenital idiots could see that. The unemployment rate went up like a ROCKET. From 3.5% to 25%. That would be 21.5%. A higher increase than ever in US HISTORY. Twice as bad as ever. And it was not stopping. So, even the Republican administration put forward stimulus bills. And the depression only started turning around after the stimulus was IMPLEMENTED.
So, you can say:
1. No stimulus would have been better and shortened the Great Republican Depression, but:
A, For over 4 years, that was tried, with disastrous results, and with great human misery.
B. Stimulus led to a faster reduction in unemployment than at any time in economic history in this nation.

 

[Rshermr]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Yup. The loons support the KP because it is a right wing talking point. They are told to. But they really do not know why anyone would oppose it. Like:
www.tarsandsblockade.org/about-2/why-oppose-kxl/
NASA's leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen has called the Keystone XLpipeline “a fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/killing-kxlNatural Resources Defense Council
Aug 12, 2015 - Then TransCanada applied for a permit to build Keystone XL. .... More than 100 scientists wrote to President Obama to oppose KXL.

And on and on and on.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Why is it OK to create tens of thousands of "infrastructure" jobs that are temporary but it isn't OK to create 45,000 jobs for an estimated two years and then 500 permanent jobs?

Because it's oil? Because you don't care if energy costs more? You progressives have that mind set...but then you can't understand why the Private Sector isn't rushing to invest more money in building new plants or expanding existing ones in the US!

Then you whine about how it's the GOP that needs to do more to create jobs? The GOP has it's hands full stopping you on the far left that don't care how your policies affect the economy from chasing more jobs out of the country!

 

[Oldstyle]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Yup. The loons support the KP because it is a right wing talking point. They are told to. But they really do not know why anyone would oppose it. Like:
www.tarsandsblockade.org/about-2/why-oppose-kxl/
NASA's leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen has called the Keystone XLpipeline “a fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/killing-kxlNatural Resources Defense Council
Aug 12, 2015 - Then TransCanada applied for a permit to build Keystone XL. .... More than 100 scientists wrote to President Obama to oppose KXL.

And on and on and on.

You've got to love Rshermr! Good thing he doesn't post from sites that are biased!

At this point it's a neck and neck race over whether he's ignorant or simply hypocritical. Or is it both?

 

[Rshermr]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Yup. The loons support the KP because it is a right wing talking point. They are told to. But they really do not know why anyone would oppose it. Like:
www.tarsandsblockade.org/about-2/why-oppose-kxl/
NASA's leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen has called the Keystone XLpipeline “a fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/killing-kxlNatural Resources Defense Council
Aug 12, 2015 - Then TransCanada applied for a permit to build Keystone XL. .... More than 100 scientists wrote to President Obama to oppose KXL.

In one corner, the American Petroleum Institute, the oil billionaire Koch Brothers,other fossil fuel giants, the far right American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and politicians they influence — the same folks behind the attacks on unions, worker rights and health care and social justice reforms.

Standing with NNU in opposition are every major environmental group, farmers, ranchers and community leaders along the pipeline pathway, First Nations leaders, and most Canadian unions.

Then there are the total lying conservative trolls, who want to tell you that there are tens of thousands of jobs that will be lost if the KS Pipeline goes away. That, of course, is not supported. Now, con trolls have no compunction to tell the truth. So here is some help:
More jobs are certainly needed, but even the just concluded State Department assessment conceded Keystone would support only 35 post-construction jobs.
Even a conservative troll should be able to tell the difference between thousands, and 35.

And on and on and on.

 

[Faun]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Why is it OK to create tens of thousands of "infrastructure" jobs that are temporary but it isn't OK to create 45,000 jobs for an estimated two years and then 500 permanent jobs?

Because it's oil? Because you don't care if energy costs more? You progressives have that mind set...but then you can't understand why the Private Sector isn't rushing to invest more money in building new plants or expanding existing ones in the US!

Then you whine about how it's the GOP that needs to do more to create jobs? The GOP has it's hands full stopping you on the far left that don't care how your policies affect the economy from chasing more jobs out of the country!

No, not because it's just oil. I already explained it to you, but you appear to be too slow to understand.

As far as jobs created and saved by ARRA, the purpose was to keep the economy flowing for 2 years with the hope that the private sector would kick in after being decimated by Bush's Great Recession. And it worked as designed.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Why is it OK to create tens of thousands of "infrastructure" jobs that are temporary but it isn't OK to create 45,000 jobs for an estimated two years and then 500 permanent jobs?

Because it's oil? Because you don't care if energy costs more? You progressives have that mind set...but then you can't understand why the Private Sector isn't rushing to invest more money in building new plants or expanding existing ones in the US!

Then you whine about how it's the GOP that needs to do more to create jobs? The GOP has it's hands full stopping you on the far left that don't care how your policies affect the economy from chasing more jobs out of the country!

No, not because it's just oil. I already explained it to you, but you appear to be too slow to understand.

As far as jobs created and saved by ARRA, the purpose was to keep the economy flowing for 2 years with the hope that the private sector would kick in after being decimated by Bush's Great Recession. And it worked as designed.

I hate to break this to you, Faun but in reality...the economy IS the Private Sector! What the Obama Stimulus did was prop up the Public Sector while for the most part ignoring the Private Sector. So what happened to all those Public Sector jobs as soon as the Stimulus started to run out? There wasn't enough revenue being generated by the Private Sector to keep those Public Sector folks employed at the local level so cities, towns and States started laying off their employees in an attempt to balance their budgets. The Federal Government...which doesn't have to worry about balancing a budget kept right on getting bigger through deficit spending. In the meantime huge numbers of Private Sector workers had been put out of work and even more Private Sector workers were terrified that they would be let go as well and responded by spending as little money as possible. You are right that the Obama Stimulus was built on the "hope" that the Private Sector would "kick in"! Too bad Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't do something to help that cause! Instead they essentially told the Private Sector...you guys are on your own...oh and by the way?...we're going to pass ObamaCare which is going to hit you with added costs and once we get THAT...we'll be going after Cap & Trade legislation that will add even more costs to your bottom line!

 

[Oldstyle]

I have to laugh at Rshermr claiming that the Keystone Pipeline is a "right wing talking point" when it was supported by the Teamsters Union, the AFL-CIO, the Laborers International Union and the International Union of Operating Engineers. Gee, did they all turn into "right wing" groups and nobody told me?

 

[Faun]

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Why is it OK to create tens of thousands of "infrastructure" jobs that are temporary but it isn't OK to create 45,000 jobs for an estimated two years and then 500 permanent jobs?

Because it's oil? Because you don't care if energy costs more? You progressives have that mind set...but then you can't understand why the Private Sector isn't rushing to invest more money in building new plants or expanding existing ones in the US!

Then you whine about how it's the GOP that needs to do more to create jobs? The GOP has it's hands full stopping you on the far left that don't care how your policies affect the economy from chasing more jobs out of the country!

No, not because it's just oil. I already explained it to you, but you appear to be too slow to understand.

As far as jobs created and saved by ARRA, the purpose was to keep the economy flowing for 2 years with the hope that the private sector would kick in after being decimated by Bush's Great Recession. And it worked as designed.

I hate to break this to you, Faun but in reality...the economy IS the Private Sector! What the Obama Stimulus did was prop up the Public Sector while for the most part ignoring the Private Sector. So what happened to all those Public Sector jobs as soon as the Stimulus started to run out? There wasn't enough revenue being generated by the Private Sector to keep those Public Sector folks employed at the local level so cities, towns and States started laying off their employees in an attempt to balance their budgets. The Federal Government...which doesn't have to worry about balancing a budget kept right on getting bigger through deficit spending. In the meantime huge numbers of Private Sector workers had been put out of work and even more Private Sector workers were terrified that they would be let go as well and responded by spending as little money as possible. You are right that the Obama Stimulus was built on the "hope" that the Private Sector would "kick in"! Too bad Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't do something to help that cause! Instead they essentially told the Private Sector...you guys are on your own...oh and by the way?...we're going to pass ObamaCare which is going to hit you with added costs and once we get THAT...we'll be going after Cap & Trade legislation that will add even more costs to your bottom line!

Utter nonsense. Typical for you. ARRA was not only funding the creation and saving of jobs, it also provided tax cuts for the private sector. So you're wrong about that. Plus there were additional stimulus' passed to help the private sector, such as cash for clunkers. So you're wrong about that too. The economy cratered. Credit markets locked up and money flowing through the economy, like life blood, was tightening up. Obama's stimulus served as a transfusion until the private sector could stand up again. And it worked as designed. Early in 2010, the private sector began to recover. Had Obama not gotten ARRA passed... had he let the U.S. auto markets dive into total collapse... the economy could have slipped into another Great Depression.

Not that con tools like you would have cared since the worse the economy is while a Democrat, the happier you are.

 

[Oldstyle]

I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary. I know? Who'd have thought?? All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too) that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED. At that point, they move on to another pipeline. The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama. How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad. The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Why is it OK to create tens of thousands of "infrastructure" jobs that are temporary but it isn't OK to create 45,000 jobs for an estimated two years and then 500 permanent jobs?

Because it's oil? Because you don't care if energy costs more? You progressives have that mind set...but then you can't understand why the Private Sector isn't rushing to invest more money in building new plants or expanding existing ones in the US!

Then you whine about how it's the GOP that needs to do more to create jobs? The GOP has it's hands full stopping you on the far left that don't care how your policies affect the economy from chasing more jobs out of the country!

No, not because it's just oil. I already explained it to you, but you appear to be too slow to understand.

As far as jobs created and saved by ARRA, the purpose was to keep the economy flowing for 2 years with the hope that the private sector would kick in after being decimated by Bush's Great Recession. And it worked as designed.

I hate to break this to you, Faun but in reality...the economy IS the Private Sector! What the Obama Stimulus did was prop up the Public Sector while for the most part ignoring the Private Sector. So what happened to all those Public Sector jobs as soon as the Stimulus started to run out? There wasn't enough revenue being generated by the Private Sector to keep those Public Sector folks employed at the local level so cities, towns and States started laying off their employees in an attempt to balance their budgets. The Federal Government...which doesn't have to worry about balancing a budget kept right on getting bigger through deficit spending. In the meantime huge numbers of Private Sector workers had been put out of work and even more Private Sector workers were terrified that they would be let go as well and responded by spending as little money as possible. You are right that the Obama Stimulus was built on the "hope" that the Private Sector would "kick in"! Too bad Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't do something to help that cause! Instead they essentially told the Private Sector...you guys are on your own...oh and by the way?...we're going to pass ObamaCare which is going to hit you with added costs and once we get THAT...we'll be going after Cap & Trade legislation that will add even more costs to your bottom line!

Utter nonsense. Typical for you. ARRA was not only funding the creation and saving of jobs, it also provided tax cuts for the private sector. So you're wrong about that. Plus there were additional stimulus' passed to help the private sector, such as cash for clunkers. So you're wrong about that too. The economy cratered. Credit markets locked up and money flowing through the economy, like life blood, was tightening up. Obama's stimulus served as a transfusion until the private sector could stand up again. And it worked as designed. Early in 2010, the private sector began to recover. Had Obama not gotten ARRA passed... had he let the U.S. auto markets dive into total collapse... the economy could have slipped into another Great Depression.

Not that con tools like you would have cared since the worse the economy is while a Democrat, the happier you are.

The ARRA saved the US auto industry? Really, Faun? If memory serves me the GM bailout came from TARP money...which was Bush's baby. Obama simply continued what Bush had started...except he used TARP to reward his pals in the UAW with a much sweeter deal than they ever could have gotten if GM had simply been allowed to file for bankruptcy and restructure. That GM deal ended up costing US tax payers a ton of money...the way that Bush used TARP we ended up getting back all of our money plus interest.

As for Cash For Clunkers? Have you already forgotten what a debacle that was? At a cost to tax payers of 2.8 BILLION dollars, the Obama Administration managed to "save" or create an estimated 2,000 jobs! That works out to a whopping cost of 1.4 million per job "saved" or created! As soon as the two month program ended car sales fell off a cliff so all they accomplished was front loading sales that would have taken place over a longer period of time into a shorter period of time. It didn't do squat for the overall economy! Then there were the side effects of that liberal cluster fuck. Car dealers had to destroy any "clunkers" that they took in trade...which depleted the number of used cars and drove up prices on the remaining used cars so that the poorest people in our society had to pay more to purchase a car. One more example of progressives trying to use government intervention to "fix" something and only managing to screw it up worse than it was before...while incurring huge costs!

 

[Oldstyle]

And you also seem to have forgotten what we the American people "got" from the Obama tax cuts in his stimulus! It was $400 for an individual and $800 for a couple! Just how did you expect THAT to stimulate the economy? The truth is...that minute amount of a tax refund let Obama claim to have kept his campaign promise to give everyone a tax cut while really giving them next to nothing!

 

[Faun]

Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.

Why is it OK to create tens of thousands of "infrastructure" jobs that are temporary but it isn't OK to create 45,000 jobs for an estimated two years and then 500 permanent jobs?

Because it's oil? Because you don't care if energy costs more? You progressives have that mind set...but then you can't understand why the Private Sector isn't rushing to invest more money in building new plants or expanding existing ones in the US!

Then you whine about how it's the GOP that needs to do more to create jobs? The GOP has it's hands full stopping you on the far left that don't care how your policies affect the economy from chasing more jobs out of the country!

No, not because it's just oil. I already explained it to you, but you appear to be too slow to understand.

As far as jobs created and saved by ARRA, the purpose was to keep the economy flowing for 2 years with the hope that the private sector would kick in after being decimated by Bush's Great Recession. And it worked as designed.

I hate to break this to you, Faun but in reality...the economy IS the Private Sector! What the Obama Stimulus did was prop up the Public Sector while for the most part ignoring the Private Sector. So what happened to all those Public Sector jobs as soon as the Stimulus started to run out? There wasn't enough revenue being generated by the Private Sector to keep those Public Sector folks employed at the local level so cities, towns and States started laying off their employees in an attempt to balance their budgets. The Federal Government...which doesn't have to worry about balancing a budget kept right on getting bigger through deficit spending. In the meantime huge numbers of Private Sector workers had been put out of work and even more Private Sector workers were terrified that they would be let go as well and responded by spending as little money as possible. You are right that the Obama Stimulus was built on the "hope" that the Private Sector would "kick in"! Too bad Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't do something to help that cause! Instead they essentially told the Private Sector...you guys are on your own...oh and by the way?...we're going to pass ObamaCare which is going to hit you with added costs and once we get THAT...we'll be going after Cap & Trade legislation that will add even more costs to your bottom line!

Utter nonsense. Typical for you. ARRA was not only funding the creation and saving of jobs, it also provided tax cuts for the private sector. So you're wrong about that. Plus there were additional stimulus' passed to help the private sector, such as cash for clunkers. So you're wrong about that too. The economy cratered. Credit markets locked up and money flowing through the economy, like life blood, was tightening up. Obama's stimulus served as a transfusion until the private sector could stand up again. And it worked as designed. Early in 2010, the private sector began to recover. Had Obama not gotten ARRA passed... had he let the U.S. auto markets dive into total collapse... the economy could have slipped into another Great Depression.

Not that con tools like you would have cared since the worse the economy is while a Democrat, the happier you are.

The ARRA saved the US auto industry? Really, Faun? If memory serves me the GM bailout came from TARP money...which was Bush's baby. Obama simply continued what Bush had started...except he used TARP to reward his pals in the UAW with a much sweeter deal than they ever could have gotten if GM had simply been allowed to file for bankruptcy and restructure. That GM deal ended up costing US tax payers a ton of money...the way that Bush used TARP we ended up getting back all of our money plus interest.

As for Cash For Clunkers? Have you already forgotten what a debacle that was? At a cost to tax payers of 2.8 BILLION dollars, the Obama Administration managed to "save" or create an estimated 2,000 jobs! That works out to a whopping cost of 1.4 million per job "saved" or created! As soon as the two month program ended car sales fell off a cliff so all they accomplished was front loading sales that would have taken place over a longer period of time into a shorter period of time. It didn't do squat for the overall economy! Then there were the side effects of that liberal cluster fuck. Car dealers had to destroy any "clunkers" that they took in trade...which depleted the number of used cars and drove up prices on the remaining used cars so that the poorest people in our society had to pay more to purchase a car. One more example of progressives trying to use government intervention to "fix" something and only managing to screw it up worse than it was before...while incurring huge costs!

This is why there truly is no reason to discuss politics with you. You don't understand what people say and your entire raison d'être is to either criticize any successful policy by Democrats or to credit Republicans for them; and to blame Democrat for any failed policy by Republicans.

This post of yours is a marvelous example. I didn't say ARRA funds were used to pay for cash for clunkers, I said there were additional stimulus' passed besides ARRA, cash for clunkers being one of them. You're too stupid and too focused to criticize, you didn't even notice that. And despite your ineffective criticism, the program accomplished what it was designed to do -- get money flowing through the economy and provide a temporary boost to the struggling auto industry.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why is it OK to create tens of thousands of "infrastructure" jobs that are temporary but it isn't OK to create 45,000 jobs for an estimated two years and then 500 permanent jobs?

Because it's oil? Because you don't care if energy costs more? You progressives have that mind set...but then you can't understand why the Private Sector isn't rushing to invest more money in building new plants or expanding existing ones in the US!

Then you whine about how it's the GOP that needs to do more to create jobs? The GOP has it's hands full stopping you on the far left that don't care how your policies affect the economy from chasing more jobs out of the country!

No, not because it's just oil. I already explained it to you, but you appear to be too slow to understand.

As far as jobs created and saved by ARRA, the purpose was to keep the economy flowing for 2 years with the hope that the private sector would kick in after being decimated by Bush's Great Recession. And it worked as designed.

I hate to break this to you, Faun but in reality...the economy IS the Private Sector! What the Obama Stimulus did was prop up the Public Sector while for the most part ignoring the Private Sector. So what happened to all those Public Sector jobs as soon as the Stimulus started to run out? There wasn't enough revenue being generated by the Private Sector to keep those Public Sector folks employed at the local level so cities, towns and States started laying off their employees in an attempt to balance their budgets. The Federal Government...which doesn't have to worry about balancing a budget kept right on getting bigger through deficit spending. In the meantime huge numbers of Private Sector workers had been put out of work and even more Private Sector workers were terrified that they would be let go as well and responded by spending as little money as possible. You are right that the Obama Stimulus was built on the "hope" that the Private Sector would "kick in"! Too bad Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't do something to help that cause! Instead they essentially told the Private Sector...you guys are on your own...oh and by the way?...we're going to pass ObamaCare which is going to hit you with added costs and once we get THAT...we'll be going after Cap & Trade legislation that will add even more costs to your bottom line!

Utter nonsense. Typical for you. ARRA was not only funding the creation and saving of jobs, it also provided tax cuts for the private sector. So you're wrong about that. Plus there were additional stimulus' passed to help the private sector, such as cash for clunkers. So you're wrong about that too. The economy cratered. Credit markets locked up and money flowing through the economy, like life blood, was tightening up. Obama's stimulus served as a transfusion until the private sector could stand up again. And it worked as designed. Early in 2010, the private sector began to recover. Had Obama not gotten ARRA passed... had he let the U.S. auto markets dive into total collapse... the economy could have slipped into another Great Depression.

Not that con tools like you would have cared since the worse the economy is while a Democrat, the happier you are.

The ARRA saved the US auto industry? Really, Faun? If memory serves me the GM bailout came from TARP money...which was Bush's baby. Obama simply continued what Bush had started...except he used TARP to reward his pals in the UAW with a much sweeter deal than they ever could have gotten if GM had simply been allowed to file for bankruptcy and restructure. That GM deal ended up costing US tax payers a ton of money...the way that Bush used TARP we ended up getting back all of our money plus interest.

As for Cash For Clunkers? Have you already forgotten what a debacle that was? At a cost to tax payers of 2.8 BILLION dollars, the Obama Administration managed to "save" or create an estimated 2,000 jobs! That works out to a whopping cost of 1.4 million per job "saved" or created! As soon as the two month program ended car sales fell off a cliff so all they accomplished was front loading sales that would have taken place over a longer period of time into a shorter period of time. It didn't do squat for the overall economy! Then there were the side effects of that liberal cluster fuck. Car dealers had to destroy any "clunkers" that they took in trade...which depleted the number of used cars and drove up prices on the remaining used cars so that the poorest people in our society had to pay more to purchase a car. One more example of progressives trying to use government intervention to "fix" something and only managing to screw it up worse than it was before...while incurring huge costs!

This is why there truly is no reason to discuss politics with you. You don't understand what people say and your entire raison d'être is to either criticize any successful policy by Democrats or to credit Republicans for them; and to blame Democrat for any failed policy by Republicans.

This post of yours is a marvelous example. I didn't say ARRA funds were used to pay for cash for clunkers, I said there were additional stimulus' passed besides ARRA, cash for clunkers being one of them. You're too stupid and too focused to criticize, you didn't even notice that. And despite your ineffective criticism, the program accomplished what it was designed to do -- get money flowing through the economy and provide a temporary boost to the struggling auto industry.

What's amazing to me is that you can sit there now, Faun and claim that Cash For Clunkers accomplished what it was designed to do! It absolutely DIDN'T! It was an ill conceived liberal concept that cost tax payers an incredible amount of money, created very few jobs, briefly stimulated the auto industry only to then flat line sales when the program ended and cost the poor more out of pocket money to purchase a cheap used car!

How is my criticism "ineffective"? What was ineffective...was Cash For Clunkers ITSELF!