Supreme Court Decision That "Sticks in your Craw" the Most - Page 4

SheetWise · #31 09-08-2005, 08:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Compare the fortunes of the middle class during 1890-1920 vs the middle class of 1940-1970. It's simply no contest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think it might have been the war?

lehighguy · #32 09-08-2005, 08:45 PM

The war prompted growth in the 1940s. And growth in the 60s was prompted by JFKs tax cuts. Of course, oppressive taxation and government regulation did manage to destroy our economy by the 70s.

The New Deal had failed by 1938. Having fixed none of the structual problems in the economy FDR had run out of money by that time. Had WWII not saved us, he would have gone down in history as a horrible president.

Lastly, the protectionist and xenophobic trade policy endoresed in the Smoot-Holley Act (may be mispelling) led to the breakdown in global trade and greatly increased the depth of the depression. Of course, Herbert Hoover's tax increase in the early 30s didn't help. Nor did the federal reserves determination to keep interest rates high and fidling with reserve requirements and other banking mechanisms.

But let us not learn from histories mistakes. Let's act like big government, and not the war, saved us from the great depression, rather then caused it.

britspin · #33 09-08-2005, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Having fixed none of the structual problems in the economy FDR had run out of money by that time. Had WWII not saved us, he would have gone down in history as a horrible president........
But let us not learn from histories mistakes. Let's act like big government, and not the war, saved us from the great depression, rather then caused it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see, the second world war caused a massive increase in the percentage of US national income spent by the government, represent a huge increase in Keynsian defict spending, federalised large parts of the US economy and generally massively increased the role of the state way beyond anything dreamt of in the NRA, NRLB, CCC, PWA or NYA programmes. according to you, this massive increase in state spending saved america, but a far smaller increase was a parlous error. Can you see the flaw in your argument, or would you rather FDR had started spending at WW2 rates immediately on entering office, in order to "save" america?

In reality War = Big government, for good or ill.

britspin · #34 09-08-2005, 09:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Having fixed none of the structual problems in the economy FDR had run out of money by that time. Had WWII not saved us, he would have gone down in history as a horrible president........
But let us not learn from histories mistakes. Let's act like big government, and not the war, saved us from the great depression, rather then caused it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reality War = Big government, for good or ill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because silly statements like the one above annoy me.. here are the stats for federal govt expediture in unadjusted dollars from 1929 onwards. Some foolish people might think that Government got quite big in the 2nd world war, and that this might have had some small impact on the economy.

DATE VALUE
1929 2.6
1930 2.7
1931 4.0
1932 3.0
1933 3.4
1934 5.5
1935 5.6
1936 7.8
1937 6.4
1938 7.3
1939 8.4
1940 8.5
1941 12.7
1942 31.0
1943 52.6
1944 66.9
1945 70.5
1946 44.5

lehighguy · #35 09-08-2005, 11:24 PM

It's quite correct that in situations of severe demand shortage Keynsian stimulation is a good cure for the economy.

But is this what a majority of FDRs programs did. Some of his most famous programs, like social security, were transfer payments. Those don't effect GDP at all. Tax increases didn't really help the economy, nor did excessive government regulation or price controls. Nor cutting of international trade to protect American jobs. Nearly all government solutions made the depression worse. I won't pin the central banks mistakes on FDR, but they tried thier fair share of government based solutions that hurt the economy.

Even ignoring those structural problems caused by government intervention, let's assume keynsian stimulation is the best solution to such an extreme demand shortfall. That doesn't mean we should continue it long after the crisis is over. Poster I responded to claimed FDRs policies where the basis of prosperity from 1940-1970. That's a pretty broad claim beyond keynsian demand helping with the depression.

By you logic maintaining incredibly high government spending and deficiet spending would be great for the economy over the long run. However, if that were true then the soviet union would not have collapsed, they only needed to increase government spending. Simply increasing government spending doesn't improve the economy, especially if your not suffering from a severe demand shortage.

The only way to achieve long term economic growth is through productivity gains.

QuadsOverQuads · #36 09-09-2005, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
By your logic maintaining incredibly high government spending and deficit spending would be great for the economy over the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a ridiculously inaccurate restatement of my argument, and of the New Deal in general. It is the kind of absurd strawman that seriously makes me question the intellectual integrity of the poster. The New Deal was about insuring the economic futures of working men and women, and protecting the right to organize for better wages and working conditions. To characterize that as just a "spending program" is laughable. It's like saying that buying food for your family or insurance for your kids is just a "spending program". It's as though you've completely decided to ignore what the New Deal actually bought for America, and the way that it helped working Americans build two generations of solid middle class jobs and paychecks in this country.

q/q

lehighguy · #37 09-09-2005, 12:36 AM

My parents are both in unions. If they are examples of what built the middle class, I sure as hell don't see it. Thier unions are horrible, and they seem to hurt thier employees as much as they help. Most unions have broken up by now because they were failures, and a lot of industries with unions have failed miserably and gone out of business.

American business, with its amazing productivity increases, helped provide the prosperity of the 1950s and 60s. The innovation of the free market drove growth and provided jobs and lives.

Meanwhile, his social programs like SS are going to bankrupt my generation. You don't provide social insurance by creating huge liabilities and relying on future tax revenues that may or may not materialize to pay for them.