US Stocks Down 15% in 2 Weeks
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:54:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  US Stocks Down 15% in 2 Weeks
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: US Stocks Down 15% in 2 Weeks  (Read 7084 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: August 12, 2011, 10:42:34 PM »

Ever hear of the Keynesian Endpoint?

Why would I hear of some nonsense coined a year ago by an idiot?

Actually first approached in the mid to late 1930.  Make sure you send a thank you note to Hitler for not getting there.

Hmm... ok.  So you're saying WWII wasn't Keynesian?

I doubt if Hitler was a Keynesian.  Even in the 1930's the the government didn't have enough resources to get the US out of the Depression.  It takes the private sector to solve the problem.  A lesson learned by, Russia, China, Eastern Europe, but not you.

Perphaps Obama understands the point as well.

There was another comment about TARP; at least 80% of the money has been repaid.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: August 13, 2011, 01:11:35 AM »

Oh BigSkyBob,

No doubt Bush place one-time loads on the camel to fight wars in the Middle-East, and he placed a ongoing burden to fund the medicare prescription benefit, "No child left behind," and, the ongoing costs for wounded soldiers. 

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were "one-time loads"?  So they are over? 

Well, they ceased to be Bush's wars in late January 2009. Since then, Obama has had the option of withdrawing at any time of his choosing. Obama chose war in Iraq, Libya, and an ever larger war in Afghanistan. That was Obama's choice, and the costs of perpetuating those war are Obama's.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?  You've gotta go back to the 1960s?  Heck, why not blame FDR for the New Deal? [/quote]


Yep, FDR passed the blackhole of Social Security with a paltry 1% tax to fund it.  Had he started straight at 7% that would have been a different story.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but it is reasonable to make assumptions based on historical performance.
[/quote]

True, but, that score is not based on reasonable assumptions. 
[/quote]

Just because you don't like the #'s doesn't make them any less valid.  But don't take my word for it.  Google "cost of bush tax cuts" and read article after article after article.
[/quote]

Well, the first hit was the Washington Post fact checker that stated 1.35 trillion is too high an estimate.


However, if you type "dynamic scoring of Bush Tax cuts" you hit articles such as


http://lockestep.blogspot.com/2011/03/static-versus-dynamic-scoring.html

The figures you cite are bogus because the assumption they make are simply wrong. For instance, Bush cut capital gains taxes. The effect was to drive up stock prices, which increased the base of capital gains taxed. Those cuts may not have been a good idea, but, they didn't reduce tax receipts the amount static models scored them.

Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: August 13, 2011, 02:55:57 PM »

Hmm... ok.  So you're saying WWII wasn't Keynesian?

I doubt if Hitler was a Keynesian.  Even in the 1930's the the government didn't have enough resources to get the US out of the Depression.  It takes the private sector to solve the problem.

Um, I hate to break it to you, J.J., but the 'resources' of the 'private sector' are available to the government - through the obvious expedients of taxation, nationalization, etc. 

The point about World War Two was that it represented a government takeover of the 'private' economy, which is what solves depressions.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: August 13, 2011, 11:31:08 PM »

Hmm... ok.  So you're saying WWII wasn't Keynesian?

I doubt if Hitler was a Keynesian.  Even in the 1930's the the government didn't have enough resources to get the US out of the Depression.  It takes the private sector to solve the problem.

Um, I hate to break it to you, J.J., but the 'resources' of the 'private sector' are available to the government - through the obvious expedients of taxation, nationalization, etc. 

The point about World War Two was that it represented a government takeover of the 'private' economy, which is what solves depressions.

Reality check, the Germans did the same thing, and they ended in ruins.

Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: August 14, 2011, 02:14:23 AM »

...World War Two was that it represented a government takeover of the 'private' economy, which is what solves depressions.

Reality check, the Germans did the same thing, and they ended in ruins.

Unrelated.  The government takeover of the economy was just as salubrious in Germany as in the US.  You're talking about the fighting, which was a separate issue.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: August 14, 2011, 10:46:22 AM »

...World War Two was that it represented a government takeover of the 'private' economy, which is what solves depressions.

Reality check, the Germans did the same thing, and they ended in ruins.

Unrelated.  The government takeover of the economy was just as salubrious in Germany as in the US.  You're talking about the fighting, which was a separate issue.

Well, if the fighting had gone the other way, we would have been left in ruins. The only reason you can plausibly claim that the "government take over of the economy" got us out of the depression is the fact we won. Had we lost, you wouldn't be making that claim.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: August 14, 2011, 11:18:07 AM »

Hmm... ok.  So you're saying WWII wasn't Keynesian?

I doubt if Hitler was a Keynesian.  Even in the 1930's the the government didn't have enough resources to get the US out of the Depression.  It takes the private sector to solve the problem.

Um, I hate to break it to you, J.J., but the 'resources' of the 'private sector' are available to the government - through the obvious expedients of taxation, nationalization, etc. 

The point about World War Two was that it represented a government takeover of the 'private' economy, which is what solves depressions.

FDR realized he couldn't win World War II without the private sector (and pissed off a number of New Dealers in the process).
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: August 14, 2011, 03:17:16 PM »

FDR realized he couldn't win World War II without the private sector (and pissed off a number of New Dealers in the process).

But you do realize that economic activity was only created by government fiat, government order, government contract, don't you J.J.?  Had their not been a WWII there would never have been an escape from the Depression, and there would never have been the post-war halcyon days.  Just as we will never leave behind the current deflation/depression if we do not abandon laissez-faire capitalism and return to a high level of State guidance and redistribution.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: August 14, 2011, 03:29:22 PM »

FDR realized he couldn't win World War II without the private sector (and pissed off a number of New Dealers in the process).

But you do realize that economic activity was only created by government fiat, government order, government contract, don't you J.J.?  Had their not been a WWII there would never have been an escape from the Depression, and there would never have been the post-war halcyon days.  Just as we will never leave behind the current deflation/depression if we do not abandon laissez-faire capitalism and return to a high level of State guidance and redistribution.

The government did not create the market for the products.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: August 14, 2011, 03:55:23 PM »

The government did not create the market for the products.

The products were bombs, tanks, airplanes, and ships.. who were they selling them to?  Teenagers?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: August 14, 2011, 04:59:44 PM »

The government did not create the market for the products.

The products were bombs, tanks, airplanes, and ships.. who were they selling them to?  Teenagers?

To some extent, the UK and Russia.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: August 15, 2011, 10:25:41 PM »

FDR realized he couldn't win World War II without the private sector (and pissed off a number of New Dealers in the process).

But you do realize that economic activity was only created by government fiat, government order, government contract, don't you J.J.?  Had their not been a WWII there would never have been an escape from the Depression,


Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. All we know for sure is that Keynesian economics failed to end the depression before WWII, while our economy boomed after WWII. The German, and Japanese economies, also, boomed after the war. You can't plausibly claim that it was government fiat in WWII that lead to their booms, because their policies left their countries in a pile of rubble. Yet, you make the exact same claim about the US!




Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Market economics lead Germany from rubble to prosperity in a couple of decades.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: August 15, 2011, 11:06:44 PM »

If by "end" you mean returned unemployment to exactly pre-1929 levels then, on the basis of that remarkably limtied definition, you are correct. Unemployment had, however, declined dramatically from the month FDR took office until Dec. 1941, at which time unemployment was not far above pre-depression levels. In fact unemployment probably would've reached that level had FDR not ignored his Keynesian advisers and impose austerity measures which directly led to the 1937-39 recession.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: August 16, 2011, 07:15:52 AM »

If by "end" you mean returned unemployment to exactly pre-1929 levels then, on the basis of that remarkably limtied definition, you are correct. Unemployment had, however, declined dramatically from the month FDR took office until Dec. 1941, at which time unemployment was not far above pre-depression levels. In fact unemployment probably would've reached that level had FDR not ignored his Keynesian advisers and impose austerity measures which directly led to the 1937-39 recession.

Some of that might have been the "Arsenal of Democracy" effect.  12 months before, America was selling to the increased demand.

Keynesian policies may a diminishing marginal utility effect when it comes to increasing demand (and yes, this thread might be more appropriate in the economics section).
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: August 16, 2011, 07:34:35 AM »

The government did not create the market for the products.

The products were bombs, tanks, airplanes, and ships.. who were they selling them to?  Teenagers?

To some extent, the UK and Russia.
The governments of the UK and Russia.
I fail to see your point.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: August 16, 2011, 07:45:16 AM »

The government did not create the market for the products.

The products were bombs, tanks, airplanes, and ships.. who were they selling them to?  Teenagers?

To some extent, the UK and Russia.
The governments of the UK and Russia.
I fail to see your point.

This point:



Some of that might have been the "Arsenal of Democracy" effect.  12 months before, America was selling to the increased demand.

Keynesian policies may a diminishing marginal utility effect when it comes to increasing demand (and yes, this thread might be more appropriate in the economics section).
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: August 16, 2011, 11:01:13 PM »

If by "end" you mean returned unemployment to exactly pre-1929 levels then, on the basis of that remarkably limtied definition, you are correct. Unemployment had, however, declined dramatically from the month FDR took office until Dec. 1941, at which time unemployment was not far above pre-depression levels. In fact unemployment probably would've reached that level had FDR not ignored his Keynesian advisers and impose austerity measures which directly led to the 1937-39 recession.

Some of that might have been the "Arsenal of Democracy" effect.  12 months before, America was selling to the increased demand.

Keynesian policies may a diminishing marginal utility effect when it comes to increasing demand (and yes, this thread might be more appropriate in the economics section).

Unemployment plummetted dramatically upon institution of New Deal policies until FDR temprarily abandoned Keynesianism in 1937. More importantly, armament production during America's period of non-involvement in \WWIIO was litterally a drop in the bucket compared to post Pearl Harbor wartie spending.

But then, isn't the point that unemployment dropped even further--to near full employment--by virtue of government spending policies the point? The fact that it was done in that instance \through defense spending and in the early NewDeal days through social programs and public works says less about the ability of one versus the other's ability to alleviate unemployment, and more about conservatives' view of the "proper" limits and role of government sending.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: August 16, 2011, 11:26:08 PM »
« Edited: August 17, 2011, 12:27:29 AM by Torie »

The Depression was more about mismanagement of the money supply in my opinion. Milton Friedman made his reputation on that topic. Letting banks fail contracted the money supply - drastically. It started by letting an upstart NYC Jewish bank fail; the WASP bankers did not like the unwelcome competition. Revisionist historical economists think much of the FDR government program antics prolonged the depression. I do not have an educated opinion on that one.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: August 17, 2011, 06:29:28 AM »

...our economy boomed after WWII. The German, and Japanese economies, also, boomed after the war. You can't plausibly claim that it was government fiat in WWII that lead to their booms, because their policies left their countries in a pile of rubble. Yet, you make the exact same claim about the US!

Of course I can make that claim - the Keynesian economics caused a boom in all countries, as it always does.  The pile-of-rubble effect was caused by the war, which is unrelated.  The war was merely the excuse for the spending, not a result of the spending.  We could re-create the same boom now by spending the money on that scale, but instead of blowing up the products we could just as well throw them in the ocean.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: August 17, 2011, 11:31:41 AM »

...our economy boomed after WWII. The German, and Japanese economies, also, boomed after the war. You can't plausibly claim that it was government fiat in WWII that lead to their booms, because their policies left their countries in a pile of rubble. Yet, you make the exact same claim about the US!

Of course I can make that claim - the Keynesian economics caused a boom in all countries, as it always does. 


Germany simply didn't follow a Keynesian path after WWII.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The boom is the US was in part the result of our bombing their factories. We were the last producer left standing.
Logged
Marston
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: August 17, 2011, 02:00:58 PM »

...our economy boomed after WWII. The German, and Japanese economies, also, boomed after the war. You can't plausibly claim that it was government fiat in WWII that lead to their booms, because their policies left their countries in a pile of rubble. Yet, you make the exact same claim about the US!

Of course I can make that claim - the Keynesian economics caused a boom in all countries, as it always does. 


Germany simply didn't follow a Keynesian path after WWII.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The boom is the US was in part the result of our bombing their factories. We were the last producer left standing.

This isn't true in regards to Germany. Production in Germany actually increased through 1944 (...in large part due to workings of Albert Speer).
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: August 17, 2011, 02:43:16 PM »

...our economy boomed after WWII. The German, and Japanese economies, also, boomed after the war. You can't plausibly claim that it was government fiat in WWII that lead to their booms, because their policies left their countries in a pile of rubble. Yet, you make the exact same claim about the US!

Of course I can make that claim - the Keynesian economics caused a boom in all countries, as it always does. 


Germany simply didn't follow a Keynesian path after WWII.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The boom is the US was in part the result of our bombing their factories. We were the last producer left standing.

This isn't true in regards to Germany. Production in Germany actually increased through 1944 (...in large part due to workings of Albert Speer).

1) This isn't true. Civilian production was cancelled. Military production topped out in mid-1994, and declined thereafter.

2) There was a lot more bombings after mid 1944.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: August 17, 2011, 03:12:54 PM »

Germany simply didn't follow a Keynesian path after WWII.

Obviously I was talking about before and during the war, BS.  After the war there was no need for small countries to follow Keynesianism - they could simply export into the Great Keynesian Market (the USA).

The boom is the US was in part the result of our bombing their factories. We were the last producer left standing.


Simple nonsense, BS - production is never the key to any boom!  The boom in both Germany and the US was caused by Demand - Keynesian-created demand.  The very idea that 'production' creates a boom - haven't you noticed there was no production in China a couple of decades ago, and loads in Detroit?  Where are they now?

Good lord you right-wingers have everything so comically backwards.
Logged
Marston
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 446
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: August 17, 2011, 04:30:17 PM »

...our economy boomed after WWII. The German, and Japanese economies, also, boomed after the war. You can't plausibly claim that it was government fiat in WWII that lead to their booms, because their policies left their countries in a pile of rubble. Yet, you make the exact same claim about the US!

Of course I can make that claim - the Keynesian economics caused a boom in all countries, as it always does. 


Germany simply didn't follow a Keynesian path after WWII.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The boom is the US was in part the result of our bombing their factories. We were the last producer left standing.

This isn't true in regards to Germany. Production in Germany actually increased through 1944 (...in large part due to workings of Albert Speer).

1) This isn't true. Civilian production was cancelled. Military production topped out in mid-1994, and declined thereafter.

2) There was a lot more bombings after mid 1944.

1) I didn't know we were differentiating between civilian and military production. Production is production. It doesn't matter who the consumer is in this case. FYI, civilian production was scaled-back, but not cancelled (and not until mid 1942)

2) Germany's relative GDP increased through 1944. The drop-off in 1945 was due to the factories falling under allied control and the war ending in May of that year. Allied bombings had incremental effects on overall production. Many were targeted terror bombings (see Dresden).
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: August 17, 2011, 05:23:49 PM »

Germany simply didn't follow a Keynesian path after WWII.

Obviously I was talking about before and during the war, BS.  After the war there was no need for small countries to follow Keynesianism - they could simply export into the Great Keynesian Market (the USA).

The boom is the US was in part the result of our bombing their factories. We were the last producer left standing.


Simple nonsense, BS - production is never the key to any boom!  The boom in both Germany and the US was caused by Demand - Keynesian-created demand.  The very idea that 'production' creates a boom - haven't you noticed there was no production in China a couple of decades ago, and loads in Detroit?  Where are they now?

Good lord you right-wingers have everything so comically backwards.

Except, as pointed out, there is a diminishing marginal utility for government created demand.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 11 queries.