Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

I agree, eventually they will. Eventually the economy recovered from the Great Depressions and the depressions we had before it. It took many years of suffering to recover from that unnecessary level of destruction.

But unnecessary damage and destruction is not avoided all by themselves. They are more than corrections. They are unnecessary damage caused by psychological overreaction of fear and panic.

That is what Govt intervention can mitigate.

 

Not sure how the 2008 crisis counts as a mere recession in gdp. A bit more than that really.

 

Prove it.

You support government spending to stimulate the economy, which is never done without debt spending. Debt spending is very much part of the Pass the Buck mindset.

Any tax cut would provide a permanent, real stimulus. It may not get money flowing as fast as government force can, but government forcibly taxing and spending money doesn't create any net wealth. All it does is cause the velocity of money to increase now at the expense of later. Which only puts off the negative effects of the recession (market self-correction) to a later date.

Government action doesn't permanently stimulate anything either. It only stimulates now at the expense of the future. Only the free market can create a real stimulus.

Let me get this straight. We must stop a recessionary spiral by preserving jobs now, which will cause a recessionary spiral that will destroy jobs in the future. I don't follow your logic.

Do you believe that the government spending money to stimulate the economy now doesn't harm the economy in the future?

 

Iriemon

Do you think any if these guys intend to further defend this notion about the 1920 recession as an example of exemplary government policy?

I was really hoping they could get into it before we got into this recent personal unpleasantness. Now Im getting the feeling they have little further to offer. Therefore Im going to leave this thread, should I?

 

The GD was unnecessary damage to the free market caused by government (specifically the Fed) actions. This has been proven to you many times and yet you continue to ignore it. Why?

 

Well perhaps you really should read the entire thread rather than requiring people to repeat themselves for you. But Im sure Iriemon is willing to help you a little though I cant see whhy he should repeat himself for you.

Government spending is never done without debt? Nonsense.

Does that permanent stimulus include the numerous Stimulus bill tax cuts?

Yes, true. Its like a kickstart on a motorbike, or the idling engine before acceleration.

Preserving jobs will create another spiral? Thats not what he means and you know it.

Yes. I think most Keynsians do, with qualifiers of course. Like paying debts back during good times rather than squandering it on useless tax cuts and wars.

 

No thats nonsense. In the UK we tried and continued with cuts across the board. No New Deal. We languished right up to WW2.

And nothing of the sort has been proven to Iriemon, ive been reading the threads, in fact its your side that have bailed out of debate. Just like in this thread.

 

False dichotomy logical fallacy. I already read the thread and found that he proved nothing of the sort.

I don't need Iriemon's "help". I need him to prove what he claims is true.

Strawman logical fallacy. That's not what I said. I said it was never enough to implement a recessionary recovery. Unless you'd care to prove otherwise.

No. True tax cuts require no positive government action, only negative government action. Ie, repealing laws. Not passing more laws.

No it's not.

Of course it's not what he meant, but that is the inevitable consequence of the economic policies which he supports....a consequence which he is either overlooking or intentionally ignoring.

Funny how that never seems to happen. We're almost $16T in debt, with no end in sight.
But even if it did happen, where would the money come from? Extracting wealth from the public to pay off the massive debts governments run during recessions? Sounds like a recipe for another recession to me.

Tax cuts - letting people keep their own property, isn't "squandering" anything. To say that it is squandering implies that you believe that your property is on loan to you by government. This is a tyrannical mindset.

It is government that is the squanderer with tax money, because it is inefficient and corrupt by its very nature.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is anti-war. My guess is that those who don't support him are either warmongers, chickenhawks, or maybe it's just that expensive, unnecessary wars aren't high enough on their list of priorities. Either of the three scenerios is extremely unfortunate.

 

Read the thread. I'm not going to re-write everything I've already written because you don't want to go back and read it yourself.

If that is not satisfactory to you, my deepest apologies.

You statement as to my position is overbroad. Govt spending as a stimulus should only ocurr when the economy is in a recessionary spiral. When the economy is running strong, taxes should raised and spending cut to run surpluses and pay the debt off.

I support trimming spending. It is not I who oppose raising tax revenues.

Baseless conservative propaganda, supported by dubious claims and contradicted by empirical data.

But feel free to prove it.

It doesn't need to permanent stimulate it. Just reverse the recessionary spiral and help get the economy back on its feet.

Let me get this straight. We must stop a recessionary spiral by preserving jobs now, which will cause a recessionary spiral that will destroy jobs in the future. I don't follow your logic.



Do you believe that the government spending money to stimulate the economy now doesn't harm the economy in the future?[/QUOTE]

 

Milton Freidman's analysis of the GD was that it was caused and prolonged by the Fed. Ben Bernanke confirmed that Friedman was correct. So I can conclude nothing from your statement other than that you are simply fabricating.

Fortunately for you the Bank of England collaberated with the Fed to export England's post WWI recession to the United States. Otherwise England would have been in way worse shape than it was.

Your argument by selective observation is a logical fallacy. You obviously didn't read this one:

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/172839-fed-caused-great-depression.html

or the many other threads that I've engaged in with Iriemon over the years.

My "side"? I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but it's clear that you're attempting to collectivize me with the viewpoints of others. That is a bad company logical fallacy. I have no "side", all I have are my own opinions which are unique to me.

 

Already did.

Nobody's asking you to do that.

Using your say-so as proof is a logical fallacy. If that is not satisfactory to you, my deepest apologies.

Which you have yet to prove that the economy was in one.

Funny how that has never happened in practice.

Raising taxes isn't necessary to balancing the budget or paying down the debt.

Which parts of the quote are you disputing?

Where does the money come from to pay for it?

 

New unemployment claims higher, 388,000. GDP 1st quarter 2.2%.

Bad news for Republicans? How laughable. The only reason the number you cite is at 8.1% is because so many are no longer looking for work. Add all the people how have dropped out and it's closer to 10% if not above.

Yeah keep trying to sugarcoat it, no one is buying it.

 

Because Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits some more?

 

Except that aging workforce is having to work longer.............fail.

 

In spite of him as you already know.

Again that resilient economy, it just slowed the growth from 9% to 7% costing us revenues, as you already know.

No it was Clinton who was wrong as his tax increase not only did not bring in the revenues he promised it cost of revenues, even he admitted he raised taxes too much, as you already know.

 

Cheering the tepid growth and high unemployment again I see.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Feel free to prove it.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Feel free to prove it.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Feel free to prove it.

 

Beat hell out of an economy heading straight down the toilet which is what the last guy you all put in office left us.

 

No, because over 4 million additional private sector jobs have been created since Jan 2010. Which is about 5 million more than Bush's term.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous View Post
Already did. You provided zero proof that the economy would have entered into a death spiral had it not been for government intervention.

It has been proven to you over and over that the economy and job losses bottom out just as Obama took office and were already rebounding before his stimulus and government intervention occured. Had he done nothing but got out of the way and announced that he would support making the Bush tax cuts permanent the economy would have entered a TRUE recovery not this tepid one that can't create enough jobs to keep up with population or enough revenue to keep up with his spending.

They don't pay any taxes to speak of what are you going to cut?

And Obama failed to do so. 388,000 new jobs claims last week, 4 weeks in a row over 350,000.

 

No, it's not nonsense.

The UK barely increased spending during the Great Depression - whereas America VASTLY increased spending.

What was the result?

America took about 10 years to get back to it's pre-crash GDP per capita.
The UK - only about 4 or 5 years.

America took about 14 years to get it's unemployment rate back to pre-crash levels.
The UK - only about 9 or 10 years.

So, despite the fact that the U.S.A. spent TONS of money and the UK almost nothing to combat the Great Depression - the UK seemed to recover from it FAR quicker.

Additionally, if the theory goes that the New Deal was responsible for the 'speed' (laugh laugh) of the recovery from the Great Depression? Then the UK - with it's virtually zero increase in spending - should not have recovered from their problems nearly as quickly - if virtually at all.
Yet they recovered FAR quicker.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03/long-term-real-growth-in-us-gdp-per-capita-1871-2009/

http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

 

Compared to the 10% rate and double dip recessions many conservatives were predicting we'd have now -- and most the rest were praying for?

You bet.

 

What about the full employment under Bush's term? You would rather have 9% unemployment than the 4.5-5% under Bush. You don't need to create a lot of jobs when everyone is already working, as you have been told repeatedly.

 

You mean the Democrat congress that failed to act and exacerbated the normal slowdown. It was already rebounding when Obama took office as you already know. So why do you like Obama's high unemployment rather than the low unemployment under Bush?

 

From your own source:

US Gross Domestic Product (current dollars)
The Great Crash, 1929-1933
in 1929: $103.6 billion
in 1930: $91.2
in 1931: $76.5
in 1932: $58.7
in 1933: $56.4

New Deal Recovery and Recession, 1934-39
in 1934: $66.0 billion
in 1935: $73.3
in 1936: $83.8
in 1937: $91.9
in 1938: $86.1
in 1939: $92.2

Government Expenditures and Investments (in current dollars)
Hoover Administration, 1929-1939
in 1929: $9.4 billion
in 1930: $10.0
in 1931: $9.9
in 1932: $8.7
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1929-32: 12.0%

Roosevelt's New Deal
in 1933: $8.7 billion
in 1934: $10.5
in 1935: $10.9
in 1936: $13.1
in 1937: $12.8
in 1938: $13.8
in 1939: $14.8
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1933-39: 15.4%

Looks like a strong endorsement of New Deal/Keynesian policies to me.