Okay, but the government (taxes) paid for all those goods, with cash, or through debt. How was it any different than a giant government stimulus? Could have been war, could have been public works. Seems like we have more of an appetite for going all in when it’s an imperative war (makes sense), but in terms of the economics, what difference did it make if it was building tanks for the government, building cars for the government, or planting trees? (Serious question).
What’s a war (from an economic standpoint)if not a giant public works project?
[/quote]
Public works ended in about 1937 or so when they realized it wasn’t working. The next step is the broken window theory, we went to war and america went into debt.
Now lets look at what happens when someone goes into debt. You can use your credit card to help you maintain your life or even live above your means, that is what America did. But eventually the debts come due. Look at the national debt charts. Even after resupplying the rest of the world we where still in debt. We are going to be at 14 trillion at the end of the year, no manufacturing no world to resupply just a lot of debt that we can’t pay for.
No, it ended when misguided conservatives like you started screaming about the deficit, and as Keynes predicted, the progress that had been made was lost. It WAS working. Chart:
Clearly, output was increasing, so sorry, you’re wrong.
But, when the debts come due, you are utilizing much more of your resources, which is the whole point of the deficits, which is what you totally ignore.
Sorry, you’re wrong, and the data reflects this, which is no doubt why you ignore it.
Okay, but the government (taxes) paid for all those goods, with cash, or through debt. How was it any different than a giant government stimulus? Could have been war, could have been public works. Seems like we have more of an appetite for going all in when it’s an imperative war (makes sense), but in terms of the economics, what difference did it make if it was building tanks for the government, building cars for the government, or planting trees? (Serious question).
What’s a war (from an economic standpoint)if not a giant public works project?
[/quote]
Public works ended in about 1937 or so when they realized it wasn’t working. The next step is the broken window theory, we went to war and america went into debt.
Now lets look at what happens when someone goes into debt. You can use your credit card to help you maintain your life or even live above your means, that is what America did. But eventually the debts come due. Look at the national debt charts. Even after resupplying the rest of the world we where still in debt. We are going to be at 14 trillion at the end of the year, no manufacturing no world to resupply just a lot of debt that we can’t pay for.
[/quote]
You jumped from then to now.
You are calling WWII and economic window broken window, right?
So you’re arguing that WWII was basically the beginning (or at least the solidifying of) a really bad economic model of living off credit, and that WWII didn’t in fact save the economy.
Am I reading you correctly? If that’s so, at least that’s more intellectually honest than arguing that the New Deal was evil, but WWII was a “free-market” economic god-send.
No, it ended when misguided conservatives like you started screaming about the deficit, and as Keynes predicted, the progress that had been made was lost. It WAS working. Chart:
Clearly, output was increasing, so sorry, you’re wrong.
But, when the debts come due, you are utilizing much more of your resources, which is the whole point of the deficits, which is what you totally ignore.
Sorry, you’re wrong, and the data reflects this, which is no doubt why you ignore it.
[/quote]
You are dumb.
You keep looking at things short term. Yeah you spend money and live beyond your means. The second they pulled the money the whole thing died, it was just being fed tons of money and producing little. The money runs out eventually.
You know what, I am done talking to a 155lb kid who’s probably on his parents computer going to college on their dime, trying to tell me he knows about money. You can’t go out of debt retard, we resupplied the whole world and couldn’t go out of debt. To deflate from this is going to be a depression that in many ways will make the depressions of the 30’s look like the roaring 20’s. Who is going to stop the spending? We ain’t coming out ahead, by the time this is all done and we are back up to normal speed we could have been just as far without all the bullshit.
But no thanks to people like you we are going to go through a hyper inflationary depression because we are going to default through inflation. But what happens when the rest of the world catches on and stops funding us? You never thought of that, nor are you able to grasp the big picture.
You want to see your politics in action go check out Wiemar Republic.
You are calling WWII and economic window broken window, right?
So you’re arguing that WWII was basically the beginning (or at least the solidifying of) a really bad economic model of living off credit, and that WWII didn’t in fact save the economy.
Am I reading you correctly? If that’s so, at least that’s more intellectually honest than arguing that the New Deal was evil, but WWII was a “free-market” economic god-send.[/quote]
Yes, remember we resupplied the rest of the world after world war 2 and where able to bring our debt down, but even then we couldn’t get rid of our debt. The only way through this debt is massive inflation. This type of economics leads straight to Wiemar.
You keep looking at things short term. Yeah you spend money and live beyond your means. The second they pulled the money the whole thing died, it was just being fed tons of money and producing little. The money runs out eventually.[/quote]
That’s fine that the money runs out after the economy is humming again. Buy an intro to economics textbook, please.
Translation: I’ve dug a hole for myself that there’s no way I can get out of, so I’m going to storm off indignantly.
Don’t pretend to want to look at facts, as you constantly do, and then run away and pout when we actually look at the info and it doesn’t support you.
He says “you can’t go out of debt” and then calls me a retard. Classic. How then, do people ever pay off their credit cards? How did Clinton produce those surpluses? Do you even know what you’re saying?
You people have been predicting hyperinflation for over a year now, and no sign of it. You’ve been wrong about pretty much every prediction you’ve made that I’ve seen. Why should anybody listen to you now?
Or China, who galloped out of the recession, which you can’t explain.
There are two directions you can go from here. You can go cry and pout, or you can be a man, realize you’re wrong, and use this opportunity to learn something.
So again, without trying to be jerk, what are you suggesting here? If I agree that everybody’s corrupt, then where do we go? Is nothing worth doing anymore, since it will inevitably be corrupted anyway? If so, why would you bother advocating the election of conservative politicians? Should we totally give up on society and go live in Somalia or something?[/quote]
No, we should have a society with as little coercive power as possible, because noone really cars how corrupt people are as long as they are not courrupt AND have a standing army.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not necessarily. You can get the money out in the form of aid to states, extra unemployment benefits, etc.[/quote]
That money has to come from somewhere, The government has to take that money out of the private sector to do that. And as what has been proven time and time again the private sector is better at creating things then the great destroyer of wealth ever will be.
When the government starts taking and merging with the private sector Fascism is what is created.[/quote]
Au contraire!
You could also have mercantilism, corporatism, or a mixture of all three with a generous welfare state.
In the US f.E it is obvious that big business and big government are in bed together, sometimes it is hard to tell though who is calling the shots.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not necessarily. You can get the money out in the form of aid to states, extra unemployment benefits, etc.[/quote]
That money has to come from somewhere, The government has to take that money out of the private sector to do that. And as what has been proven time and time again the private sector is better at creating things then the great destroyer of wealth ever will be.
When the government starts taking and merging with the private sector Fascism is what is created.[/quote]
Exactly. The government cannot give to anyone, what is has not first taken from someone else.
[/quote]
same thing with a capitalist. maybe a system without a state or a private person exploiting you is the way to go.
ps. funny thing: taxation is an old form of exploitation. In the feudal system you had to pay a form of tax to your master. today we go to work and some of the values we make goes to the employer, its called profit. then afterwards we are taxed by the state. So today we are exploited twice. thats kind of fucked up.[/quote]
Really?
Did the factory a worker works in just poof into existence or did someone have to build it?
Did someone have to put cash on the table to finance R&D, pay for buildings and machinery and pay the production costs until the money rolled in?
Because of someone did that he expected a reward for it and this is were the money you call “exploitatin” goes.
If the capitalist had not done all that the worker would be far less productive and would earn far, far less.
Besides, to call something that is a mutually beneficial and voluntary relationship exploitation is polemic nonsense.
Okay, but the government (taxes) paid for all those goods, with cash, or through debt. How was it any different than a giant government stimulus? Could have been war, could have been public works. Seems like we have more of an appetite for going all in when it’s an imperative war (makes sense), but in terms of the economics, what difference did it make if it was building tanks for the government, building cars for the government, or planting trees? (Serious question).
What’s a war (from an economic standpoint)if not a giant public works project?
[/quote]
From an economic standpoint it is even worse, public work projects at least try to create wealth, whereas war destroys it.
Okay, but the government (taxes) paid for all those goods, with cash, or through debt. How was it any different than a giant government stimulus? Could have been war, could have been public works. Seems like we have more of an appetite for going all in when it’s an imperative war (makes sense), but in terms of the economics, what difference did it make if it was building tanks for the government, building cars for the government, or planting trees? (Serious question).
What’s a war (from an economic standpoint)if not a giant public works project?
[/quote]
From an economic standpoint it is even worse, public work projects at least try to create wealth, whereas war destroys it.
[/quote]
I agree, because at least there’s an economic return on all that output, not just the stimulus of all the jobs created (through gov. debt) but also usable goods and projects. (Again, I’m just talking economics, not the moral imperative of a just war).
But I’m not sure in the long run it’s worth it to have created a debt-based economy.
So again, without trying to be jerk, what are you suggesting here? If I agree that everybody’s corrupt, then where do we go? Is nothing worth doing anymore, since it will inevitably be corrupted anyway? If so, why would you bother advocating the election of conservative politicians? Should we totally give up on society and go live in Somalia or something?[/quote]
No, we should have a society with as little coercive power as possible, because noone really cars how corrupt people are as long as they are not courrupt AND have a standing army.
[/quote]
Great, let me know when that finally works out for you.
Did the factory a worker works in just poof into existence or did someone have to build it?[/quote]
Yes, workers had to build it, not capitalists.
Yes, but where did that money come from? I remind you, the capitalist does nothing, his profits come from the labor he employs or makes possible. Even without any theoretical considerations, any child can see that there is no need whatsoever for a capitalist to supply the money.
Except for the thousands of years of human history when this was not the case, and yet great civilizations were somehow built anyway. Let me give you a hint: praxeology is bogus.
But the workers are just as capable as the capitalists of initiating projects. There is simply no need whatever for capitalists. It is a regressive and no longer necessary class.
[quote]Besides, to call something that is a mutually beneficial and voluntary relationship exploitation is polemic nonsense.
[/quote]
Slavery is mutually beneficial. Is that an argument for slavery?
But the workers are just as capable as the capitalists of initiating projects. There is simply no need whatever for capitalists.
[/quote]
How many companies have you founded, turned around, anything?
Thank you for playing.
You know what, go out, start a company, pay your creditors, the people who work for you and taxes, cut through all the BS rules and regulations and then get back to me how easy all of this is and how people who take the risks are no longer needed.
When there is one thing I truly despise it is people who tell me how “easy” it is to eek money out of a company because I spent one or two nights too many without sleep while worrying about that.
But hey, maybe the “collective” will do that instead of me, because unless I get paid handsomely I sure as hell wont.
wow - really sad that Noam Chomsky gets a whole thread dedicated to him . . . we could discuss some real issues and real thought- - but I guess some people have to start in the kiddie pool first . . . let me know when you want to really get into real economic and political thought
[quote]orion wrote:How many companies have you founded, turned around, anything?
Thank you for playing.
You know what, go out, start a company, pay your creditors, the people who work for you and taxes, cut through all the BS rules and regulations and then get back to me how easy all of this is and how people who take the risks are no longer needed.[/quote]
Another completely irrelevant post. I defy you to find where I said it was “easy.” The degree of difficulty has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, yet you continually attempt, through obfuscation, to defend the existing antisocial relations of production (i.e., separate owners and workers, who derive their incomes from different sources). This is the crux of the matter, which you avoid.
I would ask you again how this is at all relevant?
You have demonstrated many times that you have a quite inaccurate conception of human nature, and so I am not disturbed by this statemend.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
wow - really sad that Noam Chomsky gets a whole thread dedicated to him . . . we could discuss some real issues and real thought- - but I guess some people have to start in the kiddie pool first . . . let me know when you want to really get into real economic and political thought[/quote]
Which of his books have you read, and what parts did you take issue with?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
wow - really sad that Noam Chomsky gets a whole thread dedicated to him . . . we could discuss some real issues and real thought- - but I guess some people have to start in the kiddie pool first . . . let me know when you want to really get into real economic and political thought[/quote]
this thread is not sad, the fox news thread is sad.
ps. almost all other threads on this forum is made by conservatives and ultrachristians. thats sad.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:Well, here’s a few illustrations for you on government involvement prior to the great depression:
-Bad Federal Reserve Policy and Central planers playing mischief with the money supply. It was estimated by Murray Rothbard that the Fed bloated the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929, giving birth to the roaring twenties. It then decided to contract the nations money supply by one third between August 1929 and March 1933.[/quote]
But it was only stock prices that were significantly inflated during this period. Prices were not generally high, as you would expect from inflation fue to a growth in the money supply.
In fact, one of the main causes of credit expansion was the huge income disparity at the time. This aspect of the situation was essentially a crisis of overproduction, as Marx talked about. Supply did not equal demand, and so the only way to keep the economy stable was to sell things on credit, which of course cannot last forever.[/quote]
No,it was mischief with the money and credit supply. When the money supply was increased, interest rates fell, initially, which created an influx of easy money into the market. Rothbard used a more broad formula measure the increase in the money and credit supply, and there are some debates as to whether his measure was as dramatic as he said. However, the feds monkeying around with the money and credit supply DID drive interest down, and created a boom in production which only lasted until increased business costs rose, and interest rates re adjusted. This of course squeezed profits and caused the fed to take action to reduce the money supply in an effort to fight off price inflation. From what I’ve read, most economists at least agree in the fact that the feds drastically contracted the money supply in the late 1920’s. The nations money supply was actually contracted by one third between August 1929 and March 1933.
Of course, this is when investors started to see the writing on the wall, and realized that the party was coming to an end. A chain reaction of investors selling their stocks then began, and as we all know, the stock market eventually crashed. It was monetary policy by the fed that pushed the stock market up, up, and away to crazy highs. And when things went bad, the feds monetary policy made a bad situation worse.
Was it not the cheap credit afforded by a low interest rate that bellied these generous loans? And there was already a long history of margin lending on stock exchanges, with margin requirements no lower in the late twenties than in the early twenties or in previous decades. Margin requirements actually began to rise, and borrowers were required to pay a larger share of the purchase price of the stocks by the fall of 1928.
[quote]-Revenue Act of 1932, the largest tax increase in peacetime history, it doubled the income tax. The top income tax bracket actually more than doubled, going from 24 to 63 percent. If that isn’t a giant WTF!, then what the hell is!? It also needs to be mentioned that Hoover was hardly a small government, free market guy by his actions. His administrations spending was highly criticized by the Roosevelt campaign as being reckless, with the federal governmentÃ??Ã?¢??s share of GNP soaring from 16.4 percent to 21.5 percent. Hardly the actions of a small government, free market conservative. RooseveltÃ??Ã?¢??s running mate, John Garner, was running around claiming that Hoover was “leading the country towards socialism”. lol Crazy, huh?
I don’t see your point here. I didn’t argue that raising taxes during a recession (or in any situation) was a good idea.[/quote]
My point was to illustrate irresponsible government action being the cause of grief in the nations economy, especially with regards to tax policy.
[quote]My point is, that I agree with many of the economists who rightly argue that it was heavy handed government mismanagement, not a laize fair free market that preceded the great depression. This is all without getting into the socialist government policies that prolonged the depression.
So tell me, what did the government get right? And yes, I’m aware of the fact that there were many recessions and market corrections prior to the debacle of the depression. But weren’t these rather short lived and simply part of the business cycle? What I’m trying to say is that government involvement created a bad situation, and then further government involvement bad a bad situation worse.
Also, I noticed you chose not to address my illustration of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff as one of the BIG debacles of government intervention and the nasty side effects in which it had on the nations economy and financial stability. Smoot-Hawley was a giant sized blow to this nation and most definitely was not a free market capitalist idea.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:Well, here’s a few illustrations for you on government involvement prior to the great depression:
-Bad Federal Reserve Policy and Central planers playing mischief with the money supply. It was estimated by Murray Rothbard that the Fed bloated the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929, giving birth to the roaring twenties. It then decided to contract the nations money supply by one third between August 1929 and March 1933.[/quote]
But it was only stock prices that were significantly inflated during this period. Prices were not generally high, as you would expect from inflation fue to a growth in the money supply.
In fact, one of the main causes of credit expansion was the huge income disparity at the time. This aspect of the situation was essentially a crisis of overproduction, as Marx talked about. Supply did not equal demand, and so the only way to keep the economy stable was to sell things on credit, which of course cannot last forever.[/quote]
No, it was mischief with the money and credit supply. When the money supply was increased, interest rates fell, initially, which created an influx of easy money into the market. Rothbard used a more broad formula measure the increase in the money and credit supply, and there are some debates as to whether his measure was as dramatic as he said. However, the feds monkeying around with the money and credit supply DID drive interest down, and created a boom in production which only lasted until increased business costs rose, and interest rates re adjusted. This of course squeezed profits and caused the fed to take action to reduce the money supply in an effort to fight off price inflation. From what I’ve read, most economists at least agree in the fact that the feds drastically contracted the money supply in the late 1920’s. The nationâ??s money supply was actually contracted by one third between August 1929 and March 1933.
Of course, this is when investors started to see the writing on the wall, and realized that the party was coming to an end. A chain reaction of investors selling their stocks then began, and as we all know, the stock market eventually crashed. It was monetary policy by the fed that pushed the stock market up, up, and away to crazy highs. And when things went bad, the fedâ??s monetary policy made a bad situation worse.
Was it not the cheap credit afforded by a low interest rate that bellied these generous loans? And there was already a long history of margin lending on stock exchanges, with margin requirements no lower in the late twenties than in the early twenties or in previous decades. Margin requirements actually began to rise, and borrowers were required to pay a larger share of the purchase price of the stocks by the fall of 1928.
My point was to illustrate irresponsible government action being the cause of grief in the nations economy, especially with regards to tax policy
So tell me, what did the government get right? And yes, I’m aware of the fact that there were many recessions and market corrections prior to the debacle of the depression. But weren’t these rather short lived and simply part of the business cycle? What I’m trying to say is that government involvement created a bad situation, and then further government involvement bad a bad situation worse.
Also, I noticed you chose not to address my illustration of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff as one of the BIG debacles of government intervention and the nasty side effects in which it had on the nationâ??s economy and financial stability. Smoot-Hawley was a giant sized blow to this nation and most definitely was not a free market capitalist idea.
