RE: 8.3%

RE: 8.3% (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 2:19:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity What "end" to the "great recession" Sad thing for you, is the inability to accept the reality of numbers, figures, and facts. This leads you to rant and rave on material that is in black and white, known and recorded in this history books. And that, some how, through your ranting and ravings, the total lies, we'll believe it. Unfortunately, Sanity, you are not FOX News, and we are not FOX New's audience. We tend to think and check on information. Case in point. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was set up to stop the whole economy from slipping down into a depression. If Democrats (including the President) had listen to the 'rantings and ravings' of the GOP, this country would now STILL be in a depression rivalling the one that started after the 1929 stock market crash. Curious there are no conservatives bring this fact up, isnt it? Its all in the recent US History books if you dont believe me. Instead, the President and the Democratic Congress opted for the ARRA. Paid over two years to create an artifical demand to the massive supply we had at the time. Without this 'fake' demand, companies would have sold less and less inventory, ran up debt and collapse, sending.....MORE....folks into unemployment. Funny we dont hear alot of conservatives talking about this knowledge, either? As the economists studied the many economic indicators (major and minor), they did notice that the economy was recovering, abit, very slowly. Unfortunately in our country, we have to many 'immediate gratification' types that were bitching the growth wasnt fast enough. It was actually possible to get the economy going again on the 'faster' element if we just spent.....more....money in those two years. We didnt, because of all the 'ranting and ravings' of conservatives. Yet again, all there in the history books, Sanity. Economists believed if we just spent another $500-700 billion in the 3rd year, we would be mostly out of the recession. And who, Sanity, do you think was ranting and raving about all the costs (even though they were perfectly fine with Republicans spending high on the hog)? There it is. Bolded and underlined. That is why this country is still (and getting worse) in the economic throws of recession / depression. The depression of ~1921 should give anyone with half a brain a clue. It lasted for such a short period of time simply because the government did absolutely nothing. Repeat, nothing. The excesses of mal-investment were forced out of the system in short order. Those responsible took their lumps, paid the price and many went out of business as they should have. The Markets cleared the crap out, exactly as they should. The simple truth is this. The recession / depression shall continue as long as government remains the backstop for all the continuing mal-investment, essentially rewarding bad business. Like any family in severe debt, adding to that debt fixes nothing. Just prolongs the misery and makes the end game of bankruptcy that much more painful. Don't believe me? Look at Japan. And like Krugman, joether wants more of it. More debt. More misery. And like Krugman, you think it will help Joe? You can increase G to the Moon joe and you won't solve one thing. The rest of that post is mindless jabber spewing crap all about.

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 2:23:28 PM)
The problem is that a lot of people suffer in the meantime. 1921 is a poor comparison, because we had markets devastated from WWI still. If this country had treated post WWI and post WWII as the windfalls they were instead of manifest destiny, we'd be very sound right now. Instead, whenever we finally get sound, someone decides to fuck up the structural economy to bleed off the money.

Hillwilliam -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 2:30:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity In that particular post, 8.254% was quoted as what the official Obamna spokesman said, essentially its the "official" rate that the government publishes after putting various data through assorted hoops and jumps and grinders and reducers. Most people are aware of this I think, and I never gave thought to addressing those of you who didnt have any idea that was the case, which I usually dont. I normally try to post with more informed readers in mind, because its too much of a pain in the ass to try to explain everything in the universe thats related in every post... Bottom line is, contrary to your angry assertions I am not the source of the confusion. But since you indicated that you were unaware of these things I tried to give you a clue in my post 35 (which was the same information I gave out in post 34, in reply to mm). Did you miss these replies? Or are you deliberately ignoring them. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The Obama gang now trivializes 23 million people out of work: Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254% "Its the economy, stupid." - James Carville If 23 Million people are out of work and unemployment is 8.254%, that means that there are 278.6 Million people in the US of working age. (23,000,000/.08254) As there are about 310 Million people in the US counting children, retired people and the infirm, I'm calling bullshit on your 23 Million out of work figure because there are a lot more than 32 million (310M - 278M) in the US that are either under 18 years old, infirm or retired. Who was your math teacher anyway? This"The Obama gang now trivializes 23 million people out of work: Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254% "Its the economy, stupid." - James Carville _____________________________" Is post #22. I answered in #23. to explain that your numbers are impossible given the US population. All you are saying now is that you backpedalled with your CNBC link. As for anger, there's no anger. There's just incredulty that someone could regurgitate numbers they heard somewhere that are flat impossible. If you're going to claim 23 million out of qwork then claim your 16%, not 8.3. Attempt to not look like some kid that cant pass algebraI

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 2:33:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The problem is that a lot of people suffer in the meantime. 1921 is a poor comparison 1921 is an excellent comparison. Mal-investment has no bedfellows and the markets take no prisoners. Like being ill, one does not begin to get better till the problem is solved. In this current case and that of '21 and even '29, only '21 was short because of lack of government intervention in the markets. Mal-investment induced recession / depression causes suffering. The only question is, for how long. The markets cannot clear it as long as it's on government sponsored life support whether via the FED or acts/cronyism of Congress.

dcnovice -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 2:44:30 PM)
quote: The depression of ~1921 should give anyone with half a brain a clue. It lasted for such a short period of time simply because the government did absolutely nothing. Repeat, nothing. Interesting. So Herbert Hoover, who'd been Harding's commerce secretary and presumably seen this magic bullet in action, could have ended the Great Depression if he'd done nothing after the 1929 crash?

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 2:44:37 PM)
You just ignored the entire reason why it's not comparable.

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:03:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: The depression of ~1921 should give anyone with half a brain a clue. It lasted for such a short period of time simply because the government did absolutely nothing. Repeat, nothing. Interesting. So Herbert Hoover, who'd been Harding's commerce secretary and presumably seen this magic bullet in action, could have ended the Great Depression if he'd done nothing after the 1929 crash? Magic bullet is definitely not a proper metaphor for non-government intervention. Subsequent to the '29 crash and onset of the depression had Hoover done nothing it would have been shorter though probably more painful in the short run, the long run eventually experienced being averted. It's the mechanism of the marketplace itself which must be allowed to work.

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You just ignored the entire reason why it's not comparable. Enlighten me. 1921 is a poor comparison, because we had markets devastated from WWI still. How is war production (not for export sale) not mal-investment?

dcnovice -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:08:51 PM)
quote: Subsequent to the '29 crash and onset of the depression had Hoover done nothing it would have been shorter though probably more painful in the short run, the long run eventually experienced being averted. It's the mechanism of the marketplace itself which must be allowed to work. I wonder then why Hoover didn't choose that path, particularly given his front-row seat for 1921. Any thoughts?

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:33:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Subsequent to the '29 crash and onset of the depression had Hoover done nothing it would have been shorter though probably more painful in the short run, the long run eventually experienced being averted. It's the mechanism of the marketplace itself which must be allowed to work. I wonder then why Hoover didn't choose that path, particularly given his front-row seat for 1921. Any thoughts? He wasn't Harding. From Wiki - The recession lasted from January 1920 to July 1921, or 18 months, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. This was longer than most post-World War II recessions, but was shorter than recessions from 1910–12 and 1913-1914 (24 and 23 months respectively) and significantly shorter than the Great Depression (132 months). If the Keynesians are right about the Great Depression, then the depression of 1920–1921 should have been far worse. The same holds for the monetarists; things should have been awful in the 1920s if their theory of the 1930s is correct. I'm reading Hoover's book Freedom Betrayed. Fascinating. I'm saddened that he did not go into his and Roosevelt's economic policies too. But the book is great.

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:35:13 PM)
quote: Subsequent to the '29 crash and onset of the depression had Hoover done nothing Hoover DIDN'T do anything. That was the problem. Nor did Coolidge in the runup to this. Nor did FDR at first.

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:40:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You just ignored the entire reason why it's not comparable. Enlighten me. 1921 is a poor comparison, because we had markets devastated from WWI still. How is war production (not for export sale) not mal-investment? What are you talking about? What war production? "Post-WWI" and "Post-WWII" are AFTER the wars. Europe was devastated, and we sold to those markets, food to machines to whatnot. Until they got back on their feet in the subsequent decades. Who can't do well with such windfalls? Imagine suddenly, for whatever reason, all my competitors got sick for a couple of years. I'd rake in the dough. Now imagine I treated those two years as my new business model, an income stream that would only keep coming, and did nothing except act as if that were so. What would happen in a few years when my competitors got back on their feet? Now imagine I recognized this as the windfall it was, and set that money aside, or invested in new areas, knowing that revenue stream would be ending? I could position my business profitably for the coming change.

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:46:37 PM)
quote: If the Keynesians are right We'll never know whether the Keynesians are right, because we've only practiced HALF of the prescription. In downturns, we should (to the Keynesian) pursue expansionary policy (whether government spending or tax cuts or both). That we've done. But in upturns, we should balance that by practicing contractionary policy (spending cuts and/or tax increases). That we haven't done. Ever. Imagine during the 90s bubble, that "irrational exuberance," we had raised taxes and cut spending. That would have reigned in the speculation, AND it would have given us the cash to weather the recession. We also arguably could have prevented the recession, though stricter banking regulation/oversight would have been needed as well. BUT--we wouldn't have backed our way into a corner with no good monetary options left, because we would have addressed underlying fiscal problems.

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:48:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Subsequent to the '29 crash and onset of the depression had Hoover done nothing Hoover DIDN'T do anything. That was the problem. Like hell he didn't. (see my link a few post up) Hoover didn’t stop with tax cuts to bolster “aggregate demand”—though analysts at that time would not have used the term. He also signed into law massive increases in the federal budget, with fiscal year (FY) 1932 spending rising 42 percent above 1930 levels. Hoover ran unprecedented peacetime deficits, which stood in sharp contrast to his predecessor Calvin Coolidge, who had run a budget surplus every year of his presidency. It wasn’t merely that Hoover spent a bunch of money. He spent it on just the types of things that we associate today with Roosevelt’s New Deal. For example, he signed off on numerous public-works projects, including the Hoover Dam. Of particular relevance today is the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) established under Hoover, which quickly injected more than $1 billion to prop up troubled banks that had made bad loans during the boom years of the late 1920s—and this was when $1 billion really meant something.

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:53:16 PM)
Well, here's the problem with your theory. When FDR finally really spent the money, the Depression eased. A much better assault is that these things cost money. Reagan addressed the economy by quadrupling the debt--that kind of investment buys a lot of jobs. But we are buying those jobs, not creating them. Arguably we should currently have spent more much to be effective. However, no doubt that kind of spending comes at a large cost. Now---had we spent the 20s and the 50s and the 60s and the 90s setting aside more surpluses, we'd have had much smoother sailing through the downturns.

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 3:56:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, here's the problem with your theory. When FDR finally really spent the money, the Depression eased. A much better assault is that these things cost money. Reagan addressed the economy by quadrupling the debt--that kind of investment buys a lot of jobs. But we are buying those jobs, not creating them. Arguably we should currently have spent more much to be effective. However, no doubt that kind of spending comes at a large cost. There is no problem. The Great Depression lasted quite some time (lots of spending). The depression of '20-21 lasted 18 months (spending was slashed). You do the math.

thompsonx -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 4:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The problem is that a lot of people suffer in the meantime. 1921 is a poor comparison 1921 is an excellent comparison. Mal-investment has no bedfellows and the markets take no prisoners. Like being ill, one does not begin to get better till the problem is solved. In this current case and that of '21 and even '29, only '21 was short because of lack of government intervention in the markets. Mal-investment induced recession / depression causes suffering. The only question is, for how long. The markets cannot clear it as long as it's on government sponsored life support whether via the FED or acts/cronyism of Congress. There have been numerous recession/depression why do you pick only this one to try to bolster your point?

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 4:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The problem is that a lot of people suffer in the meantime. 1921 is a poor comparison 1921 is an excellent comparison. Mal-investment has no bedfellows and the markets take no prisoners. Like being ill, one does not begin to get better till the problem is solved. In this current case and that of '21 and even '29, only '21 was short because of lack of government intervention in the markets. Mal-investment induced recession / depression causes suffering. The only question is, for how long. The markets cannot clear it as long as it's on government sponsored life support whether via the FED or acts/cronyism of Congress. There have been numerous recession/depression why do you pick only this one to try to bolster your point? Because it's near textbook in its contrast.

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 4:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, here's the problem with your theory. When FDR finally really spent the money, the Depression eased. A much better assault is that these things cost money. Reagan addressed the economy by quadrupling the debt--that kind of investment buys a lot of jobs. But we are buying those jobs, not creating them. Arguably we should currently have spent more much to be effective. However, no doubt that kind of spending comes at a large cost. There is no problem. The Great Depression lasted quite some time (lots of spending). The depression of '20-21 lasted 18 months (spending was slashed). You do the math. And were back to those two periods not being comparable. You do the sarcasm.

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 4:35:39 PM)
quote: Because it's near textbook in its contrast. It's cherry picking while ignoring additional important factors.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875