114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 08:57 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
an attempt to beat the Depression with massive government outlays--an attempt that failed

That is funny ican. The market is up almost 50% over the last year but you claim it is DECREASING it's participation?
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 11:21 pm
@MontereyJack,
i am very much afraid, Monterey Jack, that you know little or nothing about the Great Depression. You really should do more reading. FDR did not get our country out of the Depression. He prolonged it. The country was still reeling from his New Deal policies in 1938 when the unemployment rate was a staggering 17.4 percent. Only the advent of World War II renewed our country's economy at a staggering cost in lives and treasure.

You show no figures in your statement. No proof. Here is a statement you should ponder-from the "Forgotten Man' by Amity Shales.

P. 8

"Businesses decided to wait Roosevelt out, hold on to their cash and invest in future years. Yet Roosevelt retailiated by introducing a tax-the undistributed profits tax--to press the money out of them. Such forays prevented recovery and took the country into the depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938."

Substitute Obama's name for FDR and you have a perfect description of what is occuring today. The only difference is that FDR was re-elected in 1936. Obama will never be re-elected in 2012.

Your statement that unemployment figures are trailing indicators is ridiculous when applied to the thirties.

October 1933---17. 4 percent Unemployment

January 1938-17.4 percent Unemployment

"trailing indicators" you say? "Up to several years to recover", you say.At that rate we would have never gotten back to normal.

Rabid political opposition, you say? I guess a far left winger could call the Supreme Court's invalidation of the AAA based on Roosevelt's misuse of the Commer Claus. I don't call Supreme Court Decisions--"rabid political opposition"

MASSAGAT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 11:24 pm
Do parados and Monterey Jack have any data or statistics to back up thier points?
I don't see any.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 12:14 am
Well, certainly, Massagat, if you want data or statistics here you go:
Quote:
The common view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession. Some economists have also called attention to the positive effects from expectations of reflation and rising nominal interest rates that Roosevelt's words and actions portended.[35][36] However, opposition from the new Conservative Coalition caused a rollback of the New Deal policies in early 1937, which caused a setback in the recovery.[37]


The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression. However, some consider that it did not play a very large role in the recovery, although it did help in reducing unemployment.[1][47][48]
The massive rearmament policies leading up to World War II helped stimulate the economies of Europe in 1937"39. By 1937, unemployment in Britain had fallen to 1.5 million. The mobilization of manpower following the outbreak of war in 1939 finally ended unemployment.[8]
America's late entry into the war in 1941 finally eliminated the last effects from the Great Depression and brought the unemployment rate down below 10%.[49] In the United States, massive war spending doubled economic growth rates, either masking the effects of the Depression or essentially ending the Depression. Businessmen ignored the mounting national debt and heavy new taxes, redoubling their efforts for greater output to take advantage of generous government contracts.

See all those little numbers, Massagat? Those are citations to references that support the position. in the article, which is Wikipedia's "Great Depression"--in other words, a lot of support.

Now if you go to the article, you'll find graphs, and you will see that America's GNP doubled between 1933 and 1940, under Roosevelt's stimulus policies. You will see that unemployment fell by 40% from about 25% to 15%. In molre detail,you will notice that GNProse steadily and unemployment fell steadily until 1937when the conservatives convinced FDR to stop his New Deal policies and implement conservative economics. Production promptly dove steeply and unemployment promptly rose steeply. FDR went back to New Deal policy and GNP started rising again and unemployment dropped. Did not look good for conservative orthodoxy.
As I said, WWII finally brought the world out of the Depression, and it was largely because it was a huge stimulus package, in which huge sums of GOVERNMENT SPENDING produced huge production, huge expansion of industry, and huge reemployment. I don't advocate putting ourselves in a situation where we have to spend on those particular goods and services again, but the principle remains that STIMULUS WORKS and conservative "let 'em all fail" economics does not.

Had Roosevelt been in a position to spend more, the Depression would have ended sooner. Obama is doing, and has done, the right thing. If he'd listened to the right, the economy would be in a death spiral now, failure dragging down all the businesses depending on the business that had just failed.

0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:17 am
Wrong-Monterey Jack.

You stated:

Now if you go to the article, you'll find graphs, and you will see that America's GNP doubled between 1933 and 1940, under Roosevelt's stimulus policies. You will see that unemployment fell by 40% from about 25% to 15.


Unemployment fell by 40% from about 25% to 15%???

Really? and it only took FIVE years? I hope Obama does not take that much time.

Here are the dismal figures from the NEW DEAL, Monterey Jack--

September 1931--17.4%

October 1933-22.9%( oops, the New Deal hasn't started to work yet. It must be like Obama's vaunted Stimulus Package--But surely, it will get better soon)

January 1934--21.3%( real progress- 1.6% more)

November 1934-23.2%--What happened, is the New Deal failing. Unemployment is going UP after FDR had been at the helm TWO FULL YEARS.

July 1935-21.3%-down again but still close to Oct 1933 and meaning that one of five people were still out of work despite massive make work expenditures on the part of the New Deal

December 1936-15.3 % Unemployed--finally some progress after FOUR years of the New Deal.

August 1937-13.5% Well, at least now only one of every eight persons did not have a job if they wanted one.

January 1938-17.4% Unemployed--The New Deal is not working. After FIVE FULL YEARS OF FDR AND THE PINKOS HE EMPLOYED, THE NEW DEAL WAS STILL NOT WORKING.

and, the economy came back in 1940?

Of course-

Note:

In the fall of 1939, FDR won a slight revision of the Neutrality Act, which now allowed belligerents to buy arms in the United States, but only with cash and only if they transported their purchases themselves, a provision called "cash and carry." Nearly one year later, the United States and Great Britain struck a deal in which the Americans loaned the British fifty mothballed destroyers in return for the use of eight British military bases. And in March 1941, FDR won enactment of a Lend-Lease program that allowed the British and other allies continued access to American arms and supplies despite their rapidly deteriorating financial situation. The huge sum of $7 billion that Congress appropriated would eventually reach more than $50 billion.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:49 am
Massagato says:
Quote:
January 1938-17.4% Unemployed--The New Deal is not working. After FIVE FULL YEARS OF FDR AND THE PINKOS HE EMPLOYED, THE NEW DEAL WAS STILL NOT WORKING.

Let me make this very simple for you, Massagato. If you will refer back to the article, and my posts, you will see that in 1937-8, FDR was convinced to drop most of the New Deal provisions and return to conventional conservative economics. THAT WAS WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT WENT UP AGAIN AND PRODUCTION DROPPED. It wasn't the New Deal that caused the deterioration. It was you guys.
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 02:08 am
@MontereyJack,
Who made the decision? You guys? or FDR?

Roosevelt thought he was Mussolini. In 1938, he was still angry at the Congress at not backing him up in his effort to pack the Supreme Court. Who did that? You guys?

The fact is that in March 1940, the columnist Arthur Krock worte that during the eighth anniversary of the New Deal, the focus was not on domestic problems or the Supreme Court,but rather-"Foreign ProblemsUppermost'

And, FDR's brain trust could see what was coming. The public was tired, so tired of the endless Unemployment, so they rebelled. The Republicans had lost seats in the House and Senate in 1930, 1932, 1934 and 1936 but they gained "Eighty in the House, Eight in the Senate and Eleven Governors in 1938.

Roosevelt's brain trust knew that they could not continue the thrust toward Socialism and the attempts to take over the judiciary, so they counseled FDR to compromise. But, he did the compromising. He was still the President. Too bad he did not have stronger principles like President Obama who would never ever under any circumstances, give in to Republican proposals even if he did not have a majority in the House or Senate! Barack Hussein Obama would never desert his key principles.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:21 am
@MASSAGAT,
This has been posted several times on here MASSAGAT.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 1.2
in 1937 and 1938, the US decreased federal spending

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif
Would you look at that.. unemployment went up in 1937-38.
Sorry I don't have a picture of the government spending for you.

But with the increase in government spending in 1939 we clearly see a drop in unemployment again.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:26 am
@MASSAGAT,
Quote:

January 1938-17.4% Unemployed--The New Deal is not working. After FIVE FULL YEARS OF FDR AND THE PINKOS HE EMPLOYED, THE NEW DEAL WAS STILL NOT WORKING.


Hmmmm.. I guess you just proved you are wrong..
Government spending in 1938 was only 6,840 (in millions) down from 8,228 in 1936. Clearly cutting the deficit spending closely correlates with the increase in unemployment. Even you have to see that.

5 full years? Oh.. right.. 2 straight years of decreasing budgets are evidence of the NEW DEAL hard at work? I would call it evidence of FDR giving in to those claiming he didn't need to spend so much money and the economy would right itself on it's own.
MASSAGAT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:05 pm
@parados,
Pehaps you would call a 17.3% Unemployment Rate a sign that a government is "working". I wouldn't and neither would a great number of other people.

But, it;s too bad that you characterize FDR as a person who was "giving in". He should be more like Barack Hussein Obama and never give in. Obama will not give in and, of course, his party will lose seats big-time in November.

What you call "giving-in" is sometimes smart politics. Clinton "gave in" on welfare and was re-elected. Sometimes, it pays to listen to your constituents!



plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:17 pm
@MASSAGAT,
I read your first two sentences which demonstrate that you can not differentiate between opinion and fact. The idea of FDR having prolonged the Depression is from the right and is of rather recent origin.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 07:08 am
@MASSAGAT,
Quote:
Pehaps you would call a 17.3% Unemployment Rate a sign that a government is "working". I wouldn't and neither would a great number of other people.

17.3%? Are you just making numbers up now?

Gee.. and look what happened when FDR "gave in" to the stupid arguments from the right. Unemployment went up. I think we adults have learned the lesson. Don't reduce spending in the middle of a recovery.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 07:34 am
This is interesting.
The same CBO that the dems applauded after their report on the health insurance reform bill now says that the Obama budgets will cause deficits in the next decade of $9.8 trillion.

I wonder why those that complained about the Bush deficits dont seem to be saying anything about the Obama deficit (at least most of them arent).
Some of them have even defended the Obama deficit as being neccessary.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/05/cbo-national-deficit-hit-nearly-trillion-upcoming-decade/
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 10:05 am
I remember when I was a full time grad student in Detroit (1969-70) and the Vietnam War was running and there were no jobs. Left wing students always said that the government unemployment figures were purposefully made to look smaller than they actually were. The same people also said that the Gulf of Tonkin was a myth.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 12:11 pm
Quote:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 1920 TO 2008
YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE |
1920……… 5.2….|1928….…. 4.2…...|1930….…. 8.7…...|1932…… 23.6 ….|1934…... 21.7…...|
1936……… 16.9 |1938….…. 19.0....|1940….…. 14.6....|1942….…. 4.7…..|1944….…. 1.2.…..|

1946……… 3.9….|1948….…. 3.8…...|1950….…. 5.3…...|1952….…. 3.0…..|1954….…. 5.5…..|
1956……… 4.1….|1958….…. 6.8…...|1960….…. 5.5…...|1962.……. 5.5…..|1964….…. 5.2…..|
1966……… 3.8….|1968….…. 3.6…...|1970….…. 4.9…...|1972….…. 5.6…..|1974….…. 5.6…..|
1976……… 7.7….|1978….…. 6.1…...|1980….…. 7.1…...|1982….…. 9.7…..|1984….…. 7.5…..|
1986……… 7.0….|1987….…. 6.2…...|1988….…. 5.5…...|1989….…. 5.3…..|1990….…. 5.6…..|
1991……… 6.8….|1992….…. 7.5…...|1993….…. 6.9…...|1994….…. 6.1…..|1995….…. 5.6…..|
1996……… 5.4….|1997….…. 4.9…...|1998….…. 4.5…...|1999….…. 4.2…..|2000….…. 4.0…..|
2001……… 4.7….|2002….…. 5.8…...|2003….…. 6.0…...|2004….…. 5.5…..|2005….…. 5.1…..|
2006……… 4.6….|2007….…. 4.6…...|2008….…. 5.8…...|2009…….. 9.5…..|2010……... ???…..|


ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 12:30 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
USA Total Civil Employed

2009
January.................... 142,221
February................... 141,687
March...................... 140,854
April...................... 140,902
May........................ 140,438
June....................... 140,038
July....................... 139,817
August..................... 139,433
September.................. 138,768
October.................... 138,242
November................... 138,381
December...................137,792

2010
January ...................... 138,333
February................... 138,641
March................... ???????

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 09:23 pm
Title of this thread:
Where is the US economy headed?

Answer:
Nowhere fast, as long as Obama and his socialist / Marxist sympathizing Democrat buddies are in control.

Summary:
It would not have taken 471 pages to answer that question.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:14 am
@plainoldme,
Really? How was that done? Are you saying that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was in some way manipulted to show false figures? Do you have proof other than your "anecdotal Evidence" which, if you knew anything about evidence and/or documentation, is really not worth very much.

Ican has provided some excellent figures. I will provide more for you.
You can find the figures on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Site.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1968 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
1969 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5
1970 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.9 6.1
1971 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0
1972 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.2
*****************************************************************
You will note, I hope, that the highest unemployment figure during those sixty months is August 1971 and the lowest is shared by many months at 3.4.
Obama would love to have a reading even two whole percentage points above the highest ( 6.1)


0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:26 am
@parados,
Why don't you check it out, Parados. The number is accurate. FDR's New Deal failed miserably. The Unemployment Rate in January 1938 was 17.4. Check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:39 am
Ican wrote:

an attempt to beat the Depression with massive government outlays--an attempt that failed.

Ican is right on target--the so called stimulus bill has stimulated little despite the MASSIVE outlay of over 700 BILLION dollars.

But, parados replied:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.64 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:49:07