Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[Dad2three]

Wow!

Look at five Liberal Roosevelt-groupies screech, howl, and fume over the truth being revealed!!!

And pouring more truth-gasoline on this fire is my guilty pleasure.




How about some more?



"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"



Morgenthau made this“startling confession,” as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDR’s New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.

“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,”Folsom writes in his new book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.”

Indeed, with those words, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today: The New Deal was failed public policy. Massive spending on public works programs didn’t erase historic unemployment. It didn’t produce a recovery.

Some of the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill about this hard truth. It’s an important truth, nevertheless, especially because the same characters insist that Barack Obama must push through a “bold” economic stimulus that depends on hundreds of billions in new government spending to create or “save” jobs.

Budget and financial experts here at The Heritage Foundation are among cooler heads cautioning that President Obama ought not to repeat President Roosevelt’s mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributeda chart showing that FDR’s programs didn’t succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'




the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill ...

Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today...
average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931


FDR made it worse, and never.....never.....accomplished his goals!!!

How odd that by the diary date---1939--FDR was only in office for six years yet his own Treasury Sec says they'd been doing it for eight years.

You'd think he'd get the years he'd been working there correct, I mean it's a lot easier than the numbers involving a national budget.

 

[Moonglow]

NO they weren't. Democrats brought us out of the great depression created by republican fools! The emerging middle class accumulated wealth that endured and provided a tax base wherever they clustered together in places called... you guessed it.... cities.

And so we travel on down the road of "Great Lies That Liberal Dunces Continue to Believe."

In case you didn't notice, after GOP presidencies of the 1920's, they never were able to gain the White House for a generation...Because of how they handled the economy...

The way "they handled the economy..." was known as the 'Roaring Twenties."

1. 
   
   
   • 
     The Roaring Twenties were the period of sustained economic prosperity with a distinctive cultural edge in New York, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, and many other major cities during the 1920s in the United States, Canada and Europe.
     Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRoaring_Twenties

And, of course, Republican President Harding was far superior to Democrat Roosevelt in fighting recessions.


Must I teach you obvious things like this each and every day???????

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Fact or fiction, sublimated by a slant...

 

[Dad2three]

In case you didn't notice, after GOP presidencies of the 1920's, they never were able to gain the White House for a generation...Because of how they handled the economy...

The way "they handled the economy..." was known as the 'Roaring Twenties."

1. 
   
   
   • 
     The Roaring Twenties were the period of sustained economic prosperity with a distinctive cultural edge in New York, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, and many other major cities during the 1920s in the United States, Canada and Europe.
     Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRoaring_Twenties

And, of course, Republican President Harding was far superior to Democrat Roosevelt in fighting recessions.


Must I teach you obvious things like this each and every day???????

It roared alright, until the house of cards that created it came to a crashing halt, literally: Causes of the Great Depression

The Economy crashed because the Fed withdrew 1/3 of the money supply

cough cough Moron cough

1929-1933 AFTER the GOP bubble popped. AND?

No, Honey Boo Boo

"I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman’s ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. …

Today I’d like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33.

… As everyone here knows, in their “Monetary History” Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation’s monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that “the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces.”


Read more at Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression

Yes the banking crash BEFORE that period wasn't the problem *shaking head*

NOT unbridled "capitalism" like Dubya's great recession, it was the feds fault *shaking head*

 

[jillian]

lol... what an amusing little troll thread

 

[Dad2three]

NO they weren't. Democrats brought us out of the great depression created by republican fools! The emerging middle class accumulated wealth that endured and provided a tax base wherever they clustered together in places called... you guessed it.... cities.

And so we travel on down the road of "Great Lies That Liberal Dunces Continue to Believe."

In case you didn't notice, after GOP presidencies of the 1920's, they never were able to gain the White House for a generation...Because of how they handled the economy...

The way "they handled the economy..." was known as the 'Roaring Twenties."

1. 
   
   
   • 
     The Roaring Twenties were the period of sustained economic prosperity with a distinctive cultural edge in New York, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, and many other major cities during the 1920s in the United States, Canada and Europe.
     Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRoaring_Twenties

And, of course, Republican President Harding was far superior to Democrat Roosevelt in fighting recessions.


Must I teach you obvious things like this each and every day???????

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow!

Look at five Liberal Roosevelt-groupies screech, howl, and fume over the truth being revealed!!!

And pouring more truth-gasoline on this fire is my guilty pleasure.




How about some more?



"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"



Morgenthau made this“startling confession,” as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDR’s New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.

“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,”Folsom writes in his new book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.”

Indeed, with those words, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today: The New Deal was failed public policy. Massive spending on public works programs didn’t erase historic unemployment. It didn’t produce a recovery.

Some of the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill about this hard truth. It’s an important truth, nevertheless, especially because the same characters insist that Barack Obama must push through a “bold” economic stimulus that depends on hundreds of billions in new government spending to create or “save” jobs.

Budget and financial experts here at The Heritage Foundation are among cooler heads cautioning that President Obama ought not to repeat President Roosevelt’s mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributeda chart showing that FDR’s programs didn’t succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'




the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill ...

Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today...
average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931


FDR made it worse, and never.....never.....accomplished his goals!!!

How odd that by the diary date---1939--FDR was only in office for six years yet his own Treasury Sec says they'd been doing it for eight years.

You'd think he'd get the years he'd been working there correct, I mean it's a lot easier than the numbers involving a national budget.

Good to see your retreat: now you're admitting that Morgenthau said the FDR administration was a failure, and now you're quibbling over when he said it.

In your face, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

lol... what an amusing little troll thread

The subject is beyond you....move on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And so we travel on down the road of "Great Lies That Liberal Dunces Continue to Believe."

In case you didn't notice, after GOP presidencies of the 1920's, they never were able to gain the White House for a generation...Because of how they handled the economy...

The way "they handled the economy..." was known as the 'Roaring Twenties."

1. 
   
   
   • 
     The Roaring Twenties were the period of sustained economic prosperity with a distinctive cultural edge in New York, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, and many other major cities during the 1920s in the United States, Canada and Europe.
     Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRoaring_Twenties

And, of course, Republican President Harding was far superior to Democrat Roosevelt in fighting recessions.


Must I teach you obvious things like this each and every day???????

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

 

[Moonglow]

In case you didn't notice, after GOP presidencies of the 1920's, they never were able to gain the White House for a generation...Because of how they handled the economy...

The way "they handled the economy..." was known as the 'Roaring Twenties."

1. 
   
   
   • 
     The Roaring Twenties were the period of sustained economic prosperity with a distinctive cultural edge in New York, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, and many other major cities during the 1920s in the United States, Canada and Europe.
     Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRoaring_Twenties

And, of course, Republican President Harding was far superior to Democrat Roosevelt in fighting recessions.


Must I teach you obvious things like this each and every day???????

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

Hardly, as the sky is not a physical limitation...

 

[PoliticalChic]

The way "they handled the economy..." was known as the 'Roaring Twenties."

1. 
   
   
   • 
     The Roaring Twenties were the period of sustained economic prosperity with a distinctive cultural edge in New York, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, and many other major cities during the 1920s in the United States, Canada and Europe.
     Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRoaring_Twenties

And, of course, Republican President Harding was far superior to Democrat Roosevelt in fighting recessions.


Must I teach you obvious things like this each and every day???????

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

Hardly, as the sky is not a physical limitation...

How come you ignored "Clinton raised the national debt 41%"?

 

[nuhuh]

Wow!

Look at five Liberal Roosevelt-groupies screech, howl, and fume over the truth being revealed!!!

And pouring more truth-gasoline on this fire is my guilty pleasure.




How about some more?



"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"



Morgenthau made this“startling confession,” as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDR’s New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.

“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,”Folsom writes in his new book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.”

Indeed, with those words, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today: The New Deal was failed public policy. Massive spending on public works programs didn’t erase historic unemployment. It didn’t produce a recovery.

Some of the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill about this hard truth. It’s an important truth, nevertheless, especially because the same characters insist that Barack Obama must push through a “bold” economic stimulus that depends on hundreds of billions in new government spending to create or “save” jobs.

Budget and financial experts here at The Heritage Foundation are among cooler heads cautioning that President Obama ought not to repeat President Roosevelt’s mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributeda chart showing that FDR’s programs didn’t succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'




the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill ...

Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today...
average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931


FDR made it worse, and never.....never.....accomplished his goals!!!

How odd that by the diary date---1939--FDR was only in office for six years yet his own Treasury Sec says they'd been doing it for eight years.

You'd think he'd get the years he'd been working there correct, I mean it's a lot easier than the numbers involving a national budget.

Good to see your retreat: now you're admitting that Morgenthau said the FDR administration was a failure, and now you're quibbling over when he said it.

In your face, huh?

Hardly. You are using engineered quotes to substantiate your claims, quotes that never said what you said they did. Everything you have used is now suspect an should looked at as dishonest.

 

[Dad2three]

Wow!

Look at five Liberal Roosevelt-groupies screech, howl, and fume over the truth being revealed!!!

And pouring more truth-gasoline on this fire is my guilty pleasure.




How about some more?



"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"



Morgenthau made this“startling confession,” as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDR’s New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.

“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,”Folsom writes in his new book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.”

Indeed, with those words, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today: The New Deal was failed public policy. Massive spending on public works programs didn’t erase historic unemployment. It didn’t produce a recovery.

Some of the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill about this hard truth. It’s an important truth, nevertheless, especially because the same characters insist that Barack Obama must push through a “bold” economic stimulus that depends on hundreds of billions in new government spending to create or “save” jobs.

Budget and financial experts here at The Heritage Foundation are among cooler heads cautioning that President Obama ought not to repeat President Roosevelt’s mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributeda chart showing that FDR’s programs didn’t succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'




the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill ...

Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today...
average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931


FDR made it worse, and never.....never.....accomplished his goals!!!

How odd that by the diary date---1939--FDR was only in office for six years yet his own Treasury Sec says they'd been doing it for eight years.

You'd think he'd get the years he'd been working there correct, I mean it's a lot easier than the numbers involving a national budget.

Good to see your retreat: now you're admitting that Morgenthau said the FDR administration was a failure, and now you're quibbling over when he said it.

In your face, huh?

Saying he was complaining about FEDERAL REVENUES as was pointed out to you dummy, AS I SAID,. SPENDING WITHOUT REVENUES!


HE WAS ARGUING FOR MORE MONEY DUMMY, TO GET A BALANCED BUDGET

LOL

http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

In case you didn't notice, after GOP presidencies of the 1920's, they never were able to gain the White House for a generation...Because of how they handled the economy...

The way "they handled the economy..." was known as the 'Roaring Twenties."

1. 
   
   
   • 
     The Roaring Twenties were the period of sustained economic prosperity with a distinctive cultural edge in New York, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, and many other major cities during the 1920s in the United States, Canada and Europe.
     Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRoaring_Twenties

And, of course, Republican President Harding was far superior to Democrat Roosevelt in fighting recessions.


Must I teach you obvious things like this each and every day???????

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

Still don't understand the diff of deficit and debt huh?

Let me know when Obama triples it like Ronnie though!

IF you meant Obama took it up $200 billion from Dubya's high. Yep. Now he cut it by 2/3rd.


LAST GOP PREZ TO SAY HE CUT A DEFICIT? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

Hardly, as the sky is not a physical limitation...

How come you ignored "Clinton raised the national debt 41%"?

The premise is, ONLY CLINTON/OBAMA have lowered the deficits handed to them in nearly 60 years Bubba!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow!

Look at five Liberal Roosevelt-groupies screech, howl, and fume over the truth being revealed!!!

And pouring more truth-gasoline on this fire is my guilty pleasure.




How about some more?



"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"



Morgenthau made this“startling confession,” as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDR’s New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.

“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,”Folsom writes in his new book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.”

Indeed, with those words, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today: The New Deal was failed public policy. Massive spending on public works programs didn’t erase historic unemployment. It didn’t produce a recovery.

Some of the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill about this hard truth. It’s an important truth, nevertheless, especially because the same characters insist that Barack Obama must push through a “bold” economic stimulus that depends on hundreds of billions in new government spending to create or “save” jobs.

Budget and financial experts here at The Heritage Foundation are among cooler heads cautioning that President Obama ought not to repeat President Roosevelt’s mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributeda chart showing that FDR’s programs didn’t succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'




the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill ...

Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today...
average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931


FDR made it worse, and never.....never.....accomplished his goals!!!

How odd that by the diary date---1939--FDR was only in office for six years yet his own Treasury Sec says they'd been doing it for eight years.

You'd think he'd get the years he'd been working there correct, I mean it's a lot easier than the numbers involving a national budget.

Good to see your retreat: now you're admitting that Morgenthau said the FDR administration was a failure, and now you're quibbling over when he said it.

In your face, huh?

Hardly. You are using engineered quotes to substantiate your claims, quotes that never said what you said they did. Everything you have used is now suspect an should looked at as dishonest.

You need another dose of truth?

Sure.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Morgenthau, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Says exactly what I've said it does.

Exactly.


FDR was an abject failure....much like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

Hardly, as the sky is not a physical limitation...

How come you ignored "Clinton raised the national debt 41%"?

The premise is, ONLY CLINTON/OBAMA have lowered the deficits handed to them in nearly 60 years Bubba!

Impossible if the national debt rose.

And it did.

41%

 

[nuhuh]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

 

[Moonglow]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

She even cuts-n-paste her insults...

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

Wow....look at you trying to dance away from the facts.

Unlike you....I provided the link and the source.....click it.


Should I await your apology?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

She even cuts-n-paste her insults...

Cut and paste means providing the source...unlike you Liberal plagiarists.