REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Thursday, December 23, 2021 01:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 18276
PAGE 1 of 5

Monday, December 16, 2013 8:32 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Very good article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-have-no-idea-what-to-do-a
bout-recessions-2013-12#ixzz2ngv5fJ4P


Quote:

To be clear, conservatives absolutely do have an economic policy agenda. They favor lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation. They often cite these policies as ones that might alleviate recession and speed recovery. They favor these policies now, they favored them in 2008, and they favored them in 2004.

That is, conservatives favor the same set of economic policies when the economy is weak and when it is strong; when unemployment is high and when it is low; when few homeowners are facing foreclosure and when many are. The implication is that conservatives believe there is nothing in particular the government should do about economic cycles.


Well conservatives, is it true?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 16, 2013 11:12 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Let's see.

Probably depends on where you start. Up until the 1930's the Democrats were more conservative than the Progressive Republicans.

Looking at Wikipedia, recessions seem to occur pretty regularly in periods when both Democrats and Republicans have the power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

the next to last recession, per Wiki, was from March to November 2001, was caused mostly by the collapse of the dot.com bubble, and would have ended sooner if not for the Sept. 11th attacks. Bush II was inaugurated in January 2001, so that recession ended early in his presidency.

The latest was Dec. 2007 to June 2009, and was caused by the sub-prime mortgage crisis. If you consider that the recession ended in June 2009, that was early in Pres. Obama's administration.

Taking the long view, recessions have occurred, and ended, in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

ETA: Then again, I might ask why we should care about Josh Barros' opinion, since he's just one guy. But I prefer to discuss the actual issue.

How 'bout you, KPO?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:00 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


The article is about modern conservatives and their policies (or lack thereof) for dealing with recessions. However, the point applies just as well to libertarians, like yourself.

It should be noted that Republicans in the past have embraced Keynesianism (notably Nixon, but also Bush2, who spent money in his 2002 stimulus) - which no Republican could get away with today.

So what policies do the GOP of today (or libertarians) have to deal with recessions? Any? Or are economic downturns just something to be accepted and fatalistically endured?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 19, 2013 12:50 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Very good article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-have-no-idea-what-to-do-a
bout-recessions-2013-12#ixzz2ngv5fJ4P


Quote:

To be clear, conservatives absolutely do have an economic policy agenda. They favor lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation. They often cite these policies as ones that might alleviate recession and speed recovery. They favor these policies now, they favored them in 2008, and they favored them in 2004.

That is, conservatives favor the same set of economic policies when the economy is weak and when it is strong; when unemployment is high and when it is low; when few homeowners are facing foreclosure and when many are. The implication is that conservatives believe there is nothing in particular the government should do about economic cycles.


Well conservatives, is it true?



Definition of insanity... so on and so forth...

No big surprise here.

Quote:



So what policies do the GOP of today (or libertarians) have to deal with recessions? Any? Or are economic downturns just something to be accepted and fatalistically endured?




No conservatives seem to want to address the question either.

Also not surprising.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:19 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

No conservatives seem to want to address the question either.

Also not surprising.


Luckily there's a thread for just that

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 9:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
The article is about modern conservatives and their policies (or lack thereof) for dealing with recessions. However, the point applies just as well to libertarians, like yourself.

It should be noted that Republicans in the past have embraced Keynesianism (notably Nixon, but also Bush2, who spent money in his 2002 stimulus) - which no Republican could get away with today.

So what policies do the GOP of today (or libertarians) have to deal with recessions? Any? Or are economic downturns just something to be accepted and fatalistically endured?



Okay.
So let's look at beginning of the article which shows the liberal response to recession, that somehow got left out originally.

Quote:

For the last five years, liberals have promoted three main economic policies to shorten or ameliorate the Great Recession and speed the recovery from it.
•Deficit-financed spending to compensate for demand gaps in the private sector.
•Easy monetary policy to raise inflation and support demand.
•Mortgage modifications to reduce foreclosures and support consumption.



So we have liberals positing "Deficit-financed spending to compensate for demand gaps in the private sector, easy monetary policy to raise inflation and support demand, and mortgage modifications to reduce foreclosures and support consumption." as what to do about recession. Despite the "last five years" comment this has been their solution pretty much since FDR.

Conservatives support "...lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation. They often cite these policies as ones that might alleviate recession and speed recovery." So they apparently think this is what to do to about recession, and have been pretty consistent for a while.

So first, it does look like Conservatives have ideas about what to do about recessions, but it's a passive response, not the activist response liberals support.

Second, since both liberals and conservatives have advocated their particular solutions for recession, let's look at the last 30 or so years of recessions (per wiki).


July 1981 – November 1982: 14 months (Reagan)
July 1990 – March 1991: 8 months (Bush I)
March 2001 – November 2001: 8 months (Bush II)
March 2003 – May 2004: 14 months (Bush II)
December 2007 – June 2009: 18 months (Bush II and Obama)

So recessions last between 8 and 18 months pretty much regardless of whether liberals or conservatives are in office. So maybe both solutions work. Or one might ask if the government actually has anything to do with ending recessions.

Now if you could show that recessions didn't go away during conservative administrations, and did go away during liberal administrations, that might support the point of the cited article. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.

(Actually, the author of your article seems to think the "Great Recession" is still ongoing. Not a good advertisement for liberal policy, if so.)



"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 10:56 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Conservatives support "...lower taxes, less regulation, government spending cuts, more domestic energy production, school choice, free trade, and low inflation. They often cite these policies as ones that might alleviate recession and speed recovery." So they apparently think this is what to do to about recession, and have been pretty consistent for a while.



Those are not conservative ideas for daeling with a recession those are just the conservative ideals they push all the time. These are the conservative ideas to everything.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 11:06 AM

STORYMARK


Its like he deliberately missed the whole point.

A perfect "case in point" for the definition mentioned above...



"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 11:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So first, it does look like Conservatives have ideas about what to do about recessions, but it's a passive response
In other words, Geezer is agreeing with you, because a "passive response" is "do what you've been doing all along- i.e., don't respond" [/snicker]

GEEZER, this past recession wasn't just "a recession", it was the WORST recession since the Great Depression. Libertarians today had no more notion of what to do with it than fiscal conservatives of 1929 knew what to do with the Great Depression. The whole point of studying the Great Depression was because it was different from recessions of the past, it didn't fit into anyone's theories (even Marx') where bust is followed by boom, but showed every evidence going on forever at a new equilibrium of deeply suppressed economic activity. Libertarian theory STILL hasn't taken it into account, and you personally look like you refuse to take it into account as well. Since you are a student of history, it seems to me that you should look into this economic phenomenon more deeply, and develop something more than a "passive (ie non-)response".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 1:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:
Those are not conservative ideas for daeling with a recession those are just the conservative ideals they push all the time. These are the conservative ideas to everything.



But as noted above, recessions ended when conservatives were in power, in about the same length of time as when liberals were. Something ended these recessions. If not the conservative administrations, then tell me what?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 1:28 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Its like he deliberately missed the whole point.



I get the point. For liberals, it's always "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!!! THROW MONEY AT IT!!!!".

Conservatives figure that if you have a working system, it'll self-correct. Apparently, the recessions during the conservative administrations shown above did self-correct - generally in less than a year.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 1:50 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER, this past recession wasn't just "a recession", it was the WORST recession since the Great Depression.



And per Wiki it ended in 18 months. Or, per the author of the article KPO cited, it's still going on despite the liberal's active measures to stop it.

Quote:

Libertarians today had no more notion of what to do with it than fiscal conservatives of 1929 knew what to do with the Great Depression.

Conservatives never had to deal with the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover was a Progressive Republican, and his response to the Depression was (guess what) to throw money at it. http://thoughtsonliberty.com/a-very-brief-history-of-herbert-hoover FDR continued to do so until WWII came along and finally boosted the economy out of the Depression. Unemployment was still at 15% in 1940.

Quote:

The whole point of studying the Great Depression was because it was different from recessions of the past, it didn't fit into anyone's theories (even Marx') where bust is followed by boom, but showed every evidence going on forever at a new equilibrium of deeply suppressed economic activity. Libertarian theory STILL hasn't taken it into account, and you personally look like you refuse to take it into account as well. Since you are a student of history, it seems to me that you should look into this economic phenomenon more deeply, and develop something more than a "passive (ie non-)response".


If you look even shallowly into analysis of the Great Depression, you'll find out that pretty much every economist has his pet theory for the causes and solutions, and that they differ in many ways. Which one would you base your reaction on?

As for "Libertarian theory still hasn't taken it into account", here's a sample.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Great_Depression

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1607961105/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&am
p;tag=advocforselfg-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1607961105


http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/obamas-new-raw-deal


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 3:38 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Its like he deliberately missed the whole point.



I get the point. For liberals, it's always "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!!! THROW MONEY AT IT!!!!".

Conservatives figure that if you have a working system, it'll self-correct. Apparently, the recessions during the conservative administrations shown above did self-correct - generally in less than a year.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."



And by self-correct, you mean pad the pockets of the already wealthy, while decimating the working class.

And you call that working....

Case. In. Point.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 4:19 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Now if you could show that recessions didn't go away during conservative administrations, and did go away during liberal administrations, that might support the point of the cited article. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.


Look, it's conventional wisdom that economic performance is cyclical - it goes up and down all on its own. So please stop making this point about recessions going away under conservatives. The question is, can government ease the pain of the downturns, and speed recovery? And should it? Liberals have answers, and ideas, to these questions. Do conservatives, or libertarians?

Quote:

FDR continued to do so until WWII came along and finally boosted the economy out of the Depression.

Ha! What was this if not massive government spending?? And it was for economically useless things like bombs that would explode on the other side of the world. But you admit, it stimulated the economy. Pretty much the definition of Keynesian spending!

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 4:29 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
But as noted above, recessions ended when conservatives were in power, in about the same length of time as when liberals were. Something ended these recessions. If not the conservative administrations, then tell me what?



Having conservatives in power does not mean they went with conservative ideals. Just look at Reagan in the begining he cut taxes and spending but truned right around started to raise taxes as well as increase spending which grew the national debt. The only differnce between Reagan's policies and liberal ones what what he threw money at.

GW Bush had a very light recession but as the unemployment rates went up he increases benifits for the unemployed...again not very conservative.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 4:43 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
And by self-correct, you mean pad the pockets of the already wealthy, while decimating the working class.



I'd ask for a cite for that, but that'd be pretty pointless.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 4:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Ha! What was this if not massive government spending?? And it was for economically useless things like bombs that would explode on the other side of the world. But you admit, it stimulated the economy. Pretty much the definition of Keynesian spending!
Exactly. It's not that FDR wasn't doing the right things pre-WWII, it's just that he didn't do ENOUGH.

BTW GEEZER, there was a huge recovery under FDR from 1930-1936. By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. But in 1936, the Federal Reserve had tightened the money supply, and the US Treasury had insisted in budget cuts and increased taxes to "balance the budget". As a result, the economy took a swift downturn in 1937. Your reading of the Great Depression, and the lessons to be learned from it, is superficial at best.

We can also look at the current EU versus the USA approach. The EU followed a tight money supply/ balanced budget approach, with the taxes of ordinary people going to refill private bank coffers and - as a result- the economies of all of southern Europe, Ireland, rural England and Scotland took a drastic downturn, the likes of which hasn't been seen since... well, since the Great Depression. Riots, 70% youth unemployment, the works. Hardly a picture of a recovering economy.

And you will probably shut your eyes and stuff your ears to the painfully obvious lessons of reality.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 5:09 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Look, it's conventional wisdom that economic performance is cyclical - it goes up and down all on its own. So please stop making this point about recessions going away under conservatives. The question is, can government ease the pain of the downturns, and speed recovery? And should it? Liberals have answers, and ideas, to these questions.



But do their ideas actually work? The article you cited still has the latest recession going on after five years of the liberals answers and ideas. Can you show and example of liberals' activist ideas ending a recession any faster than conservatives' leaving it to self-correct?

Quote:

Do conservatives, or libertarians?


Some conservatives and libertarians believe that with less government involved in business, recessions wouldn't occur, or would be weaker. If you don't break it, you don't need to fix it. Supply-siders favor tax cuts to promote capital investment.

Some blame the "Great" recession partly or wholly on the government monopoly given to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, allowing them to create the housing bubble. http://austrianschoolwarrior.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/the-next-recessi
on-ever-thought-about-it
/

Quote:

Ha! What was this if not massive government spending?? And it was for economically useless things like bombs that would explode on the other side of the world. But you admit, it stimulated the economy. Pretty much the definition of Keynesian spending!


And it only took ten years of liberal ideas and a world war that left 50 to 80 million people dead to work. Not what I'd call a success story.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 5:14 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
And by self-correct, you mean pad the pockets of the already wealthy, while decimating the working class.



I'd ask for a cite for that, but that'd be pretty pointless.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."



Only pointless because you choose not to deal with information that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions, maybe - but sorry, Grampa, its not ME who dissapears when asked for cites.



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-throu
gh-the-recovery/?_r=0


http://tcf.org/work/workers_economic_inequality/detail/a-tale-of-two-r
ecoveries
/

https://www.stanford.edu/group/recessiontrends-dev/cgi-bin/web/resourc
es/research-project/wealth-after-great-recession-who-lost-who-recovered-and-why


http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24065108/wealth-gap-widens-rich
est-1-percent-earn-biggest


And seriously - are you pretending that it didn't happen?

Are you fucking serious?

Now I know you're just being a dishonest shill. What a punk.






"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 5:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Some conservatives and libertarians believe that with less government involved in business, recessions wouldn't occur, or would be weaker. If you don't break it, you don't need to fix it. Supply-siders favor tax cuts to promote capital investment.

Some blame the "Great" recession partly or wholly on the government monopoly given to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, allowing them to create the housing bubble.

Some believe the world is flat. And some say that Geezer is a dick.

There, you see how easy it is to use that phrase, to argue a point while rhetorically distancing yourself? Let's not use that phrase, OK? If you're going to make a point, stand with it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 5:30 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

BTW GEEZER, there was a huge recovery under FDR from 1930-1936. By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels.



Not per wiki. GNP and GDP didn't hit pre-1929 levels until into 1940. Unemployment in 1940 was 15%. If you have a cite for your numbers, I'd be glad to see it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Quote:

But in 1936, the Federal Reserve had tightened the money supply, and the US Treasury had insisted in budget cuts and increased taxes to "balance the budget". As a result, the economy took a swift downturn in 1937.


Once again, the data on wiki shows a slight downturn, but not much and not long. Cites for your claim would be nice.


Quote:

Your reading of the Great Depression, and the lessons to be learned from it, is superficial at best.


My reading of the Great Depression is that if 1000 economists give their opinion on causes and cures, you'll get 200 answers. Even the wiki article shows several. So who's right?


We can also look at the current EU versus the USA approach. The EU followed a tight money supply/ balanced budget approach, with the taxes of ordinary people going to refill private bank coffers and - as a result- the economies of all of southern Europe, Ireland, rural England and Scotland took a drastic downturn, the likes of which hasn't been seen since... well, since the Great Depression. Riots, 70% youth unemployment, the works. Hardly a picture of a recovering economy.


Yep. they tried this after getting so far in debt, and with so much deficit spending going on to support the economy, that things would have broken down one way or another.

Quote:

And you will probably shut your eyes and stuff your ears to the painfully obvious lessons of reality.


And I disagree with you too.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how recessions in conservative administrations managed to end in generally less than a year, since you all claim they have no ideas as to how to stop them.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 5:36 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Only pointless because you choose not to deal with information that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions, maybe - but sorry, Grampa, its not ME who dissapears when asked for cites.



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-throu
gh-the-recovery/?_r=0


http://tcf.org/work/workers_economic_inequality/detail/a-tale-of-two-r
ecoveries
/

https://www.stanford.edu/group/recessiontrends-dev/cgi-bin/web/resourc
es/research-project/wealth-after-great-recession-who-lost-who-recovered-and-why


http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24065108/wealth-gap-widens-rich
est-1-percent-earn-biggest


And seriously - are you pretending that it didn't happen?

Are you fucking serious?



Umm. Story.

Those all happened during the "Great Recession" when Obama was president and the liberals' ideas for ending recession were being used.

Not sure how you can blame this on the conservatives.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 5:39 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OK? If you're going to make a point, stand with it.



My point is that no one has shown that liberals throwing money at recessions has had any greater effect on them than conservatives letting them self-correct.

Story has just shown that liberal response to the "Great Recession" has lined the pockets of the rich, so maybe that's success.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 5:44 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Just wanted to let you know I'll be out of town and offline for the next week.

Maybe by next Sunday you can come up with a recession that liberal actions have resolved in less time that conservative inaction.

Based on Storymark's cites, you might also try to find a recent recession that ended during a conservative administration that left behind more economic inequality than the liberal resolution of the "Great Recession".


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 6:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Not per wiki
Funny, I quoted wiki myself.
Quote:

By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. Unemployment remained high, but it was slightly lower than the 25% rate seen in 1933. The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 percent and production of durable goods fell even faster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%9338
Quote:

Once again, the data on wiki shows a slight downturn, but not much and not long. Cites for your claim would be nice.
See Wiki (above)

Quote:

Yep. they tried this after getting so far in debt, and with so much deficit spending going on to support the economy, that things would have broken down one way or another.
BULLSHOID! I've disproved this several times already- charts, graphs, cites- the works. Are you as incapable of learning as rappy?

Many of the EU nations which wound up in debt didn't do so until AFTER they hemorrhaged money into their overextended private banks. In 2006, government external debt in Spain was 17%, in Ireland was 20%, and in Portugal 48%. Hardly a problem and much MUCH better than England or the USA. Greece was the exception, at 86%. Please get that into your head, I really don't want to have to refute your STUPID IDEAS any more.
http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_gvtdebtxgdp_02x11_piigs.htm

And European banks, when they came close to failing, had nothing to do with government debt. There was a huge real estate bubble in Ireland, Scotland, and England. What are you going to blame THAT on... Fannie and Freddie??? [/snicker] German/ Nederlander/ and Finnish banks had overloaned on infrastructural ventures in Spain and Portugal. In Iceland, their three main banks failed because of... literally... self-dealing and embezzlement. Corruption, pure and simple. It didn't help that the banks operated under Basel II, which required much less capitalization as FDIC (for example) and that their savings banks were even more enmeshed with investment (speculation) than ours. It wasn't until the banks started to totter that the respective national governments went deeper into debt in order to bail them out, and under the realm of austerity that bailout money came directly from government social programs... ie, out of the mouths of the poor, and into the banks.

Quote:

My point is that no one has shown that liberals throwing money at recessions has had any greater effect on them than conservatives letting them self-correct.
My point is that you have direct comparisons- Before and after in the case of 1935 to 1937, and side-by-side in the case of the EU and the USA today. But if you keep bringing clearly erroneous "facts" to the table with that old rhetorical dodge "some say", you'll muddy the discussion. Which is probably your point.

You'll be out? How convenient for you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 6:03 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


So much to be corrected here Geezer! Are you going for Auraptor's record of most amount of wrongness in a single thread?

I'll come back later as well, to help correct some of the falsehoods, and ask some more questions that Geezer won't be able to answer.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 6:19 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


An Australian Labor Government introduced the stimulus package in response to the GFC, which resulted in Australia being one of the few countries in the world to ride through the crisis with continued economic growth. People largely kept their jobs, their homes and kept spending.

of course people still whined about how badly off they were, indoctrinated by our largely Murdoch controlled media.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer quite obviously doesn't know any real-world economic facts, so all he can do is what all libertarians do: quote some irrelevant libertarian fantasist who can only talk about how things "sh/w/could be" in some ideal libertarian world. As far as I'm concerned, I think I know what to do about depressions/ recessions like this one. Keynes has got part of the answer, but the problem is that if you shovel money at the rich- like Obama has done- then all you will do is cause speculation instead of investment. And if all you do is shovel money at the less-than rich- and you let your manufacturing capability disappear, as we have done over the past 40 years- then all you will do is cause inflation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:09 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
My point is that no one has shown that liberals throwing money at recessions has had any greater effect on them than conservatives letting them self-correct.



Did you just ignore this for a reason?

Quote:

Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
But as noted above, recessions ended when conservatives were in power, in about the same length of time as when liberals were. Something ended these recessions. If not the conservative administrations, then tell me what?



Having conservatives in power does not mean they went with conservative ideals. Just look at Reagan in the begining he cut taxes and spending but truned right around started to raise taxes as well as increase spending which grew the national debt. The only differnce between Reagan's policies and liberal ones what what he threw money at.

GW Bush had a very light recession but as the unemployment rates went up he increases benifits for the unemployed...again not very conservative.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Conservatives have not let recessions self correct. Of the recessions you posted under conservative Presidents all had some type of stimulus brought about.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:02 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Funny, I quoted wiki myself.
Quote:

By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. Unemployment remained high, but it was slightly lower than the 25% rate seen in 1933. The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 percent and production of durable goods fell even faster.



And this is supposed to be a victory for Liberal reaction to recession/depression? After nearly eight years, the unemployment rate was slightly lower than 25%, so there were a lot of folks not making any wages while business was making profits. Then again, this partial recovery was not sustainable, as the increased unemployment and production decline of 1937-38 show.

Quote:

BULLSHOID! I've disproved this several times already- charts, graphs, cites- the works. Are you as incapable of learning as rappy?


So show me where you "proved" it.

Quote:

Many of the EU nations which wound up in debt didn't do so until AFTER they hemorrhaged money into their overextended private banks. In 2006, government external debt in Spain was 17%, in Ireland was 20%, and in Portugal 48%. Hardly a problem and much MUCH better than England or the USA. Greece was the exception, at 86%. Please get that into your head, I really don't want to have to refute your STUPID IDEAS any more.
http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_gvtdebtxgdp_02x11_piigs.htm



Did you even read this cite?

Quote:

The Maastricht convergence criteria demand Euro zone members to keep government debt under 60% of GDP. By the end of 2010, PIIGS were well above the benchmark (ECB Fiscal Dashboard) :
•Portugal : 93%
•Ireland : 96%
•Italy : 119%
•Greece : 143%
•Spain : 60%

This huge public debt comprises loans by domestic and foreign creditors. Although high debt entails serious issues irrespective of the nationality of the creditors, the portion of debt borrowed from non-residents — commercial banks, governments or financial institutions — poses a particular problem. While domestic loans may be paid in local currency to resident creditors upon whom the government holds strong bargaining power, external debt, including interests, must be paid in the currency in which the loan was made to creditors capable of harsh financial retaliation in case of non-compliance.

A big chunk of PIIGS public debt is owed to non-resident creditors. As shown in the chart, this portion is above or close to the Maastricht mark in several countries of the PIIGS area. The long term trend of the external public debt follows an upward path, with annual average growth rates going from 5% to 19% (doubling time of 14 to 4 years), generally higher than GDP growth rates.

A debt crisis occurs when a country with a weak economy is unable to produce and sell goods and generate a flow of profitable returns strong enough to repay external debt. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is one of the agencies that keep track of the country's external debt and drive the recovery process in coordination, in the case of PIIGS, with the European Central Bank (ECB) and the EU Commission. The debt crisis stroke in sequence Greece (23 Apr 2009), Ireland (21 Nov 2010) and Portugal (6 Apr 2011), after they had employed a number of subterfuges to turn around Maastricht rules, hide the real situation of their national accounts, and escape the consequences of their finances mismanagement. Unfortunately, since 2009, in an environment of widespread GDP stagnation and correlated poor export performance, government external debt pursues its rise in Portugal, Ireland and Spain, and keeps at high levels in Greece and Italy, sending an advance warning of an increasingly severe situation to come.

Most of the external government debt consists of the so-called "sovereign debt", in other words bonds issued by the national government in Euros or a foreign currency, in order to finance the issuing country's economy. To repay this debt, governments count on a flow of government revenue fed by taxes on a growing GDP and a positive trade balance. However, the misuse of funds in wrongly selected projects, such as the financing of onerous military expenditure in Greece, or in contributions "à fonds perdu" or at non-economic conditions to rescue failing financial and non-financial industries, as it is the case in Ireland, Portugal and Spain, or to finance projects whose payback is complacently valuated, can impair exports and weaken GDP. The hoped for fiscal revenue will abort, making it difficult to repay sovereign debt. Such a risk translates into higher interest rates and credit freezing, further worsening the debtor's situation.

A default happens when the borrower government fails to pay interest or principal on schedule, whether because it is unable or unwilling to do so. In face of the debtor's default, the only recourse for the lender, unable to seize the government's assets, is to renegotiate the terms of the loan. A country that defaults on its sovereign debt will have difficulty obtaining a loan in the future, a serious threat to a modern and open economy. The rescue plans requested by Greece, Ireland and Portugal and imposed on them by the IMF, ECB and EU are aimed at preventing these countries from defaulting.

Notwithstanding the positive words and wishful thinking of the overseers and monitors delegated by IMF & partners, the outlook for PIIGS does not justify much optimism. Short of a strong turnaround of the world economy inducing a booming demand for exports from these countries, it seems technically unfeasible to overcome their debt situation by applying the range of financial disciplinary measures that seem more adept to cripple the economy and kill the patient while claiming to cure the illness.



Quote:



And European banks, when they came close to failing, had nothing to do with government debt.


Where did I say they did?


Quote:

There was a huge real estate bubble in Ireland, Scotland, and England. What are you going to blame THAT on... Fannie and Freddie??? [/snicker]


I'd blame it on the same thing that caused the real estate bubble in the U.S. Folks believing that real estate prices would continue to go up, and banks willing to lend them money based on that assumption, whether it was Fannie, Freddie, or Northern Rock.


Quote:

My point is that you have direct comparisons- Before and after in the case of 1935 to 1937, and side-by-side in the case of the EU and the USA today. But if you keep bringing clearly erroneous "facts" to the table with that old rhetorical dodge "some say", you'll muddy the discussion. Which is probably your point.


And the 1929 to 1937 comparison that shows a still lousy economy, high unemployment, and inability to sustain stability after nearly eight years of throwing money at the problem is considered a good example of liberal ideas?

Then again, when you cite Keynesian economists, isn't that just "some say"?

Quote:

You'll be out? How convenient for you.


And all it did for you was give you time to think up insults.



"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:07 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Conservatives have not let recessions self correct. Of the recessions you posted under conservative Presidents all had some type of stimulus brought about.



So you're saying that the article that says that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions is wrong?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:55 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that the article that says that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions is wrong?



Yes that is what I'm saying. Conservatives, at least some of them, know what to do and that is not be conservative.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 29, 2013 9:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And this is supposed to be a victory for Liberal reaction to recession/depression? After nearly eight years, the unemployment rate was slightly lower than 25%
Yes, because following the "free market" path is what caused the crash in the first place. And, as WWII demonstrated, it's not the the answer wasn't government spending, its just that the answer was MORE government spending.

Quote:

So show me where you "proved" it.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=49834
I have referred to this post and added observations to it ever since. There is a broad trail of my comments on this topic; it's not like it's been buried. So this time, read with comprehension.

Quote:

Did you even read this cite?
Quote:

The Maastricht convergence criteria demand Euro zone members to keep government debt under 60% of GDP. By the end of 2010, PIIGS...

Thank you for proving my point. The crisis - which began in 2008- didn't START with EU government debt. But that's where is wound up... with governments hemorrhaging money to prop up private banks. Again, next time read with comprehension.

Quote:

And the 1929 to 1937 comparison that shows a still lousy economy, high unemployment, and inability to sustain stability after nearly eight years of throwing money at the problem is considered a good example of liberal ideas?
Ok, let's expand the comparison- 1920 to 1930, Yep, after a full decade of "free market" economics, the economy was in great shape. (not) Yanno, like 2000 to 2008.

Quote:

Then again, when you cite Keynesian economists, isn't that just "some say"?
What is the difference between saying "Keynesian economists say..." and "Some say..."? The difference is after "Some say" you can fill in literally anything at all. Some say the moon is made of green cheese. Well, yeah, somebody, somewhere might have said that... maybe.

Quote:

And all it did for you was give you time to think up insults.
Nope, it took me no time at all!

If you check the date and time of my post, you'll see it was pretty quickly after you posted.

But I think this says it best
Quote:

So you're saying that the article that says that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions is wrong?-Geezer

Yes that is what I'm saying. Conservatives, at least some of them, know what to do and that is not be conservative.-Nick

Indeed!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 12:45 AM

STORYMARK


Did Geezer actually just ask the difference between a specific refrence to a school of thought, to a deliberately vague catch-all like "some people?"

Damn.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 5:10 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Conservatives have no imagination other than to follow and support the basics of trickle down and deregulation. Right now the order of the day seems to be make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

It is my contention that they wish to return to the medieval times and create a new kind of serfdom, where people are treated like indentured servants owing several hundred thousands of dollars. Economic slavery whereby the average consumer is indebted to the banks and the ultra-rich.
Watch closely as the economy continues to tank.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 5:58 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

And it only took ten years of liberal ideas and a world war that left 50 to 80 million people dead to work. Not what I'd call a success story.

Everyone has different pictures of what caused the great depression, what prolonged it, and what improved things. 'Ten years of liberal ideas' is a lie. Many other non-liberal policies were tried in that time, which liberals point to as having exacerbated things. The bottom line is that the picture is murky, murky enough for both sides to claim that the other side's policies were primarily/entirely to blame (as you're doing). For this reason I see debates about the great depression amongst lay people as pretty pointless.

However. You admit yourself that WWII boosted the US economy out of depression. I don't think you realise the significance of this admission. WWII was like an acid test for Keynesian policies - massive government spending on mostly non economically useful things. If you concede that WWII boosted the US economy you concede that Keynesian policies work. And then perhaps you need to go back and re-evaluate your whole understanding of the great depression, and what policies made it worse, and what policies alleviated it.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 10:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that the article that says that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions is wrong?



Yes that is what I'm saying. Conservatives, at least some of them, know what to do and that is not be conservative.



Depends on who you ask.

For example, this is the wiki comment on the recovery from the 1981 recession.

Quote:

According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.[63] However, conservatives insist that the significantly lower tax rates caused the recovery.


So liberals credit deficit spending, like they always do, and conservatives credit tax cuts, as they always do. Who's right?




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 11:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

And this is supposed to be a victory for Liberal reaction to recession/depression? After nearly eight years, the unemployment rate was slightly lower than 25%
Yes, because following the "free market" path is what caused the crash in the first place. And, as WWII demonstrated, it's not the the answer wasn't government spending, its just that the answer was MORE government spending.



The "Free Market"? Maybe you mean the "Stock Market"? Now they both have the word "Market", but conflating the two seems kind'a a stretch.

Quote:

Quote:

So show me where you "proved" it.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=49834
This time, read with comprehension.



So you posted a blog quote, I asked a question about whether failure to invest in some countries (which you, or the blogger you cite, posit was the cause of the Eurozone collapse)was due to their spending on social welfare instead of infrastructure, etc., and you never replied. Hardly proof.

Quote:

Quote:

Did you even read this cite?
Quote:

The Maastricht convergence criteria demand Euro zone members to keep government debt under 60% of GDP. By the end of 2010, PIIGS...

Thank you for proving my point. The crisis - which began in 2008- didn't START with EU government debt. But that's where is wound up... with governments hemorrhaging money to prop up private banks. Again, next time read with comprehension.



I've read the cite a couple of times, and don't find any reference to governments spending money to prop up private banks. You're the one who blames banks, not your cite.

Quote:

Quote:

And the 1929 to 1937 comparison that shows a still lousy economy, high unemployment, and inability to sustain stability after nearly eight years of throwing money at the problem is considered a good example of liberal ideas?
Ok, let's expand the comparison- 1920 to 1930, Yep, after a full decade of "free market" economics, the economy was in great shape. (not) Yanno, like 2000 to 2008.



You mean the "Roaring '20s"?

Quote:

The Roaring Twenties was a decade of great economic growth and widespread prosperity driven by recovery from wartime devastation and postponed spending, a boom in construction, and the rapid growth of consumer goods such as automobiles and electricity. The economy of the United States, which had successfully transitioned from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, boomed and provided loans for a European boom as well. However, there were sectors that were stagnant, especially farming and mining. The United States augmented its standing as richest country in the world, its industry aligned to mass production and its society acculturated into consumerism. European economies had a more difficult readjustment and began to flourish about 1924.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties


Quote:

Quote:

Then again, when you cite Keynesian economists, isn't that just "some say"?
What is the difference between saying "Keynesian economists say..." and "Some say..."? The difference is after "Some say" you can fill in literally anything at all. Some say the moon is made of green cheese. Well, yeah, somebody, somewhere might have said that... maybe.



Of course I actually cited people, but you ignored that.

So still waiting for examples of liberal response to recession being more successful than conservative response. So far you have the response to the Great Depression, that took ten years, a tripling of the National Debt, and a world war to end.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 11:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Did Geezer actually just ask the difference between a specific refrence to a school of thought, to a deliberately vague catch-all like "some people?"

Damn.



Still waiting for an explanation of how the rich getting richer during the Great Recession", which you so ably pointed out above...

Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-throu
gh-the-recovery/?_r=0


http://tcf.org/work/workers_economic_inequality/detail/a-tale-of-two-r
ecoveries
/

https://www.stanford.edu/group/recessiontrends-dev/cgi-bin/web/resourc
es/research-project/wealth-after-great-recession-who-lost-who-recovered-and-why


http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24065108/wealth-gap-widens-rich
est-1-percent-earn-biggest


And seriously - are you pretending that it didn't happen?

Are you fucking serious?




...was conservatives fault when the President and both Houses of Congress were Democratic.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 11:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

And it only took ten years of liberal ideas and a world war that left 50 to 80 million people dead to work. Not what I'd call a success story.

Everyone has different pictures of what caused the great depression, what prolonged it, and what improved things. 'Ten years of liberal ideas' is a lie. Many other non-liberal policies were tried in that time, which liberals point to as having exacerbated things.



I'd appreciate a cite for the non-liberal ideas tried, and their effect.


Quote:

The bottom line is that the picture is murky, murky enough for both sides to claim that the other side's policies were primarily/entirely to blame (as you're doing). For this reason I see debates about the great depression amongst lay people as pretty pointless.


I'll drop it if SignyM does.

Quote:

However. You admit yourself that WWII boosted the US economy out of depression. I don't think you realise the significance of this admission. WWII was like an acid test for Keynesian policies - massive government spending on mostly non economically useful things. If you concede that WWII boosted the US economy you concede that Keynesian policies work. And then perhaps you need to go back and re-evaluate your whole understanding of the great depression, and what policies made it worse, and what policies alleviated it.


If you consider having a world war with tens of millions of deaths an acceptable price for ending a depression, this might be a valid point. However, the Keynesian solution did not work for the first 10 years of the Great Depression. But you don't want to debate the Great Depression, so why bring it up?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 11:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So liberals credit deficit spending, like they always do, and conservatives credit tax cuts, as they always do. Who's right?
You figure this out by applying the scientific method, and the logic of cause and effect. You DON'T figure this out by being an ideologue.

For example, I can point to the Bush II era. He applied tax cuts, and the Fed accommodated the resulting massive (wartime) deficit spending by keeping interest rates low. But what followed after that wasn't prosperity, but the 2nd largest crash ever since industrialization.

Wow. EPIC FAIL, NO?

It fit in with my hypothesis... the hypothesis that caused me to PREDICT the crash in early 2008 (while rappy was rah-rahing the economy being ON FIRE!). That hypothesis looks at unequal income distribution. The problem with unequal income distribution is that the wealthy, by hoarding most of the available money (and yes, I mean greater than 50%, i.e. "most") have quite literally impoverished the markets they're trying to sell to. For a while, you can float the demand for goods and services on a sea of consumer loans.... home loans, credit card loans, payday loans... but eventually even THAT squeezes itself dry, as lenders try to wrest more and more $ out of a further impoverished class. Demand drops. Layoffs result. Creditors are stuck with non-performing loans. Banks fail. A downward-spiral of a crash ensues.

So by mid-2008, our economy was at the greatest inequality since 1929. Which was historic, and predictive. Because the same thing happened in 2008 that happened in 1929. That part of the theory appears correct. The difference THIS time the loans were on real estate (not stocks) and THIS time the crash was spread by interlocking "insurances" (credit default swaps) which "allowed" the banks to loan far more fictitious money and which tied them together. Rather than making them all stronger, the crash reached a tipping point which overwhelmed the capacity of the CDSs to shore up individual bond failures, and instead pulled all of the financials down together.

But... what about the EU? Technically, they had much flatter income distribution (GINI) and should have been immune.. or at least less susceptible... to the financial crash.

After I asked myself that question (after all, if one is going to be scientific about the whole thing, one has to explain countervailing data) I realized there was a lot more going on than "income". The rich HAD hoarded money, in British, Irish, Scottish, German, Finnish, Nederlander, and Icelandic banks. Wanting to realize a return, the wealthy lent it out to a number of specious projects: real estate in the UK, self-dealing in Iceland, and private infrastructural projects in Spain and Portugal. Government debt was only a factor in Greece.

But once the real estate bubble in the UK started collapsing, the financials realized there were only so many chairs, and that once the music stopped, SOME of them would be on the floor.

It was the smaller nations that took it on the chin. Altho their banks didn't do the lending, and their governments weren't indebted, the EUs' structured response was to "loan" money to the PIGS in return for "austerity for the people". National wealth flowed from the PIGS primarily to German, Finnish and Nederlander banks. (Iceland followed a different course.) The lesson that I got out of that is that it's not enough to follow "income". When banks make loans, they don't loans their cash-on-hand. No, they LITERALLY CREATE MONEY: $20 created for every $1 on-hand.

People who bitch and whine about the debasement of the currency really should look at banking operations, because the banks, in total, create (again, literally create: Add more zeros to their balance sheets) far more money than Federal deficit spending can account for. What the banks had done with their loans was balloon the money supply with fictitious money. This is a purely private, commercial action. The Fed (at the moment) is merely backfilling that fictitious money with real money, and has been doing so at the rate of $85 billion a month since three years ago. If you add in the bailouts, that should give you an idea of HOW MUCH MONEY THE BANKS HAD CREATED in the form of loans.

Capisce?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 12:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'll drop it if SignyM does.
Why should I? Isn't asking questions and finding out the truth the reason for discussion?

And, since GWB's economic debacle of 2008, we have SO MANY MORE data points to look at!

For example, we can rule out trade barriers as a cause of recessions/ depressions. Trade has never been so free as now, and yet... sigh... the financial system crashed anyway. (BTW, you would reach the same conclusion by detailed analysis of the Great Depression, which was already well under way by the time tariffs and trade wars started.)

Quote:

If you consider having a world war with tens of millions of deaths an acceptable price for ending a depression, this might be a valid point. However, the Keynesian solution did not work for the first 10 years of the Great Depression. But you don't want to debate the Great Depression, so why bring it up?
I'm going to put in my $0.02 here: The point is that KPO suggests that the cause of the GD was murky, but the cure was very plain: massive government spending on a scale far greater than had been engaged in any any New Deal policy. And, it didn't HAVE to be war. War was simply the motivation that allowed politicians to leap over their previous reservations about government spending. Do try to keep up.

Oh, and please read my previous post, and my linked post, with comprehension this time. Because this will be approximately the 10th time I've repeated the same concepts since 2007. And I'm getting a little irritated with I didn't see it! and Signy didn't say so! and Let Signy prove it!.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 12:26 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


BTW GEEZER, there was a huge recovery under FDR from 1930-1936. By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. But in 1936, the Federal Reserve had tightened the money supply, and the US Treasury had insisted in budget cuts and increased taxes to "balance the budget". As a result, the economy took a swift downturn in 1937. Your reading of the Great Depression, and the lessons to be learned from it, is superficial at best.




Thanx , Sig. That is the conventional theory of how the history went. I was gonna post that same point in refutation of Geezer, that's how I remembered learning it when I studied 20th Century history. YOU had the facts at hand quicker and better than I did. I also remember Congress starting to vote against FDR ( after the '36 election? ) and the Supreme Curt declaring some of the New Deal programs unconstitutional.

Caused a second downturn, from which the U.S. DIDN'T recover until WW2.

And if Hoover was a "progressive", as Geez claims, ( Was he? Economically? Can't say I remember that. More than Calvin Coodlidge certainly, but that ain't sayin' much.) that would make FDR a way far out there leftist. Maybe the "Socialist" or "pinko" or even "Commie" that Right WIngers have always accused him of being.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 30, 2013 12:43 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So liberals credit deficit spending, like they always do, and conservatives credit tax cuts, as they always do. Who's right?



Liberals. You can't find an example of a recession ending after only cuting taxes.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:25 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

July 1981 – November 1982: 14 months (Reagan)
July 1990 – March 1991: 8 months (Bush I)
March 2001 – November 2001: 8 months (Bush II)
March 2003 – May 2004: 14 months (Bush II)
December 2007 – June 2009: 18 months (Bush II and Obama)




Per your own cite, this latest "great" recession lasted just five more months after Obama came into office in late January. That seems to indicate that liberal policies seem to end recessions more quickly than conservative policies (8 months to 18 months for conservatives, 5 for liberals.)


I'm sure a few more months doesn't mean much to anyone, especially those who are suffering, jobless, and just had their unemployment eliminated by conservative policies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:03 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I'd appreciate a cite for the non-liberal ideas tried, and their effect.


You do realise that the first three years of the great depression a Republican was in charge? Have you only read revisionist libertarian history that told you Herbert Hoover was a liberal, or something?

Non liberal policies:

1. Balanced budgets during an economic downturn

Both Hoover and Roosevelt were keen to keep a balanced budget, even while the economy had not recovered. From Wiki:

Quote:

Regarding the policies of President Hoover, economists like Barry Eichengreen and J. Bradford DeLong point out that President Hoover tried to keep the federal budget balanced until 1932


Quote:

In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget.[94] The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938.


Quote:

Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. He (Hoover) was also a firm believer in balanced budgets (as were most Democrats), and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs.


This can all be seen from this graph, which shows that US debt was flat for most of the GD - in other words no deficit spending - against what Keynes pleaded for.



2. Protectionism

Again, from Wiki:

Quote:

In June 1930, over the objection of many economists, Congress approved and Hoover reluctantly signed into law the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act. The legislation raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression had spread worldwide, and Canada, France and other nations retaliated by raising tariffs on imports from the U.S. The result was to contract international trade, and worsen the Depression.[110]


So you see, the idea that the GD was just 10 years of unrestricted liberal policies is a disingenuous libertarian fantasy.

Now. Back to the graph above. When did the US debt explode, and deficit spending really begin? The onset of WWII right? As I've been telling you - that's when Keynesianism really kicked in.

Quote:

If you consider having a world war with tens of millions of deaths an acceptable price for ending a depression, this might be a valid point

What exactly about WWII do you think ended the GD?? You think it was all the killing, and destruction? You think European bombing raids, gas chambers and ground offensives spurred US economic growth?

You're pretty confused here aren't you. Well I'll help you, and answer the question for you, but first I think I need to explain basic Keynesian theory to you. Keynes proposed that a government could theoretically spend money digging holes in the ground, and then burying jars of banknotes inside, and then leave it to private enterprise to dig up the jars of money for their own profit - and that this would boost employment, and the economy. And if the policy was carried out on a large enough scale it could boost a country out of a depression.

I'm telling you that this is exactly the role WWII played for the US economy. The US didn't put people to work digging holes in the ground and filling them in, but it did employ millions in the US military, and put them to work shooting and bombing Nazis and Japanese. The US didn't bury money for private companies to dig up, but it did give billions of $$$ of war materials/munitions contracts to US factories.

WWII was a massive (economic) waste of US money, manpower and resources - just like burying money in the ground - but it boosted the economy, just as Keynes' theory predicted it would.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

So liberals credit deficit spending, like they always do, and conservatives credit tax cuts, as they always do. Who's right?
You figure this out by applying the scientific method, and the logic of cause and effect. You DON'T figure this out by being an ideologue.



You do realize how funny it is for you to say this, don't you?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, and please read my previous post, and my linked post, with comprehension this time. Because this will be approximately the 10th time I've repeated the same concepts since 2007. And I'm getting a little irritated with I didn't see it! and Signy didn't say so! and Let Signy prove it!.



I read your previous post. It's pretty funny that you complain about ideologues then go on an ideological "But Bush..." rant yet again.

And you seem to be in the same boat as KPO, deciding that if it takes a world war to end a depression, then that's a good thing. Somehow, I'm not too comfortable with that. It must be a liberal thing.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 31, 2013 9:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


BTW GEEZER, there was a huge recovery under FDR from 1930-1936. By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. But in 1936, the Federal Reserve had tightened the money supply, and the US Treasury had insisted in budget cuts and increased taxes to "balance the budget". As a result, the economy took a swift downturn in 1937. Your reading of the Great Depression, and the lessons to be learned from it, is superficial at best.




Thanx , Sig. That is the conventional theory of how the history went. I was gonna post that same point in refutation of Geezer, that's how I remembered learning it when I studied 20th Century history.



Unemployment right before the recession of 1937-38 was 14.3%. This is a success? Not sure how it refutes anything.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 31, 2013 9:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
You do realise that the first three years of the great depression a Republican was in charge? Have you only read revisionist libertarian history that told you Herbert Hoover was a liberal, or something?



(Funny. I thought you didn't want to discuss the Great Depression since it was so murky and all. But if you insist.)

Nope. Read wiki.

Quote:

When the Wall Street Crash of 1929 struck less than eight months after he took office, Hoover tried to combat the ensuing Great Depression with government enforced efforts, public works projects such as the Hoover Dam, tariffs such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, an increase in the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%, and increases in corporate taxes.[3] These initiatives did not produce economic recovery during his term, but served as the groundwork for various policies incorporated in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

Quote:

Non liberal policies:

1. Balanced budgets during an economic downturn

Both Hoover and Roosevelt were keen to keep a balanced budget, even while the economy had not recovered. From Wiki:

Quote:

Regarding the policies of President Hoover, economists like Barry Eichengreen and J. Bradford DeLong point out that President Hoover tried to keep the federal budget balanced until 1932


Quote:

In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget.[94] The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938.


Quote:

Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. He (Hoover) was also a firm believer in balanced budgets (as were most Democrats), and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs.


This can all be seen from this graph, which shows that US debt was flat for most of the GD - in other words no deficit spending - against what Keynes pleaded for.




Interesting. Per the Treasury, the actual amount of the national debt increased from $16 billion in 1929 to $48 billion in 1941. Not sure that this qualifies as keeping the budget balanced. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3
.htm


Quote:

2. Protectionism

Again, from Wiki:

Quote:

In June 1930, over the objection of many economists, Congress approved and Hoover reluctantly signed into law the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act. The legislation raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression had spread worldwide, and Canada, France and other nations retaliated by raising tariffs on imports from the U.S. The result was to contract international trade, and worsen the Depression.[110]


So you see, the idea that the GD was just 10 years of unrestricted liberal policies is a disingenuous libertarian fantasy.



Smoot-Hawley was gone by 1934. The Depression remained.

Quote:

Now. Back to the graph above. When did the US debt explode, and deficit spending really begin? The onset of WWII right? As I've been telling you - that's when Keynesianism really kicked in.


Not if you look at the actual amount of debt as shown in my cite. Actual dollars of debt went up steadily from 1929 to 1941.

Quote:

What exactly about WWII do you think ended the GD?? You think it was all the killing, and destruction? You think European bombing raids, gas chambers and ground offensives spurred US economic growth?

You're pretty confused here aren't you.



Nope. I get the point of Keynesian theory. Throw enough money at it and recession/depression goes away. The problem is that you can't convince folks to dig holes and bury jars of money. You need something like a war - the imminent threat of killing, destruction, bombing, gas chambers, etc. - to get people to willingly make such sacrifices and go so far into national debt. So I'm back to thinking that the Keynesian solution is to have a nice big war.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL