Are Obama and his Team Repeating Mistakes of the 1930s?

Just wanted to give you something to reply to. You're so completely out of gas on the main points, after all, that you're down to repeating already blown away claims.

 

You ducked the question.:

Are the above stats I posted true or false?



And about Keynes, he clearly was pro-protectionism at that time (as shown in my quotes/links).

Which proves (imo) Smoot-Hawley was Keynesianism.


And prove what I posted are: 'knowingly and deliberately misleading statements'...as you claim?



Have a nice day.

 

Those stats are not 'claims'.

They are facts.

Please learn what terms mean better before typing them.


Have a nice day.

 

They are knowing and deliberate misrepresentations. You have no high ground to stand on here.

He was also anti-protectionism at that same time, as you (probably not knowlingly) fail to note.

Your twisted, contorted, and falsified opinions don't matter one whit. How much Keynes can you honestly claim to have read? Any at all?

Already have, and more than once. You make quite a lousy propagandist, you know. Don't quit your day job.

 

They are deliberate, but failed, attempts to deceive. You are a partisan shamster. Your cover has now long been blown.

 

So you refuse to answer my simple question.

Noted.

You only seem able to accuse me of deliberately doing things that you could not possibly know unless you were me. So they are meaningless accusations.

Noted.


Please let me know when you have the emotional strength to answer my simple question(s)?


Have an emotionally stronger day.

 

pure nonsence.......consumption and production are very different. In one horse town if that one industry leaves usually the town dies. If consumption was all that mattered then all the citizens of the town had to do was spend....but the town dont produce anything...so although that spending may temporarily increase GDP in that town, long term...without any poduction you have leakage ( a term used by the banking industry) which means money leaving the system without any money coming back.

If you can't understand that basic feature then there is no hope for you!

 

You are very correct, bacardi.

Anyone knows you can have production without having consumption.

This is where excess inventory comes from!

17thAndK gets things wrong most of the time.

He thinks like a common socilaist.

 

And what's worse..he (and many others) are so arrogant, that they never think they are wrong and thusly - might never learn.

That is how (imo) people stay ignorant about things for their whole lives - they just refuse to consider they might not be correct.


And of course, you can have consumption without production...in Keynesian land where everyone owns their own printing press and prints all the money they need. And if they ever run low...Uncle Ben Bernanke comes flying over in his helicopter to dump lots of money down to all the good little girls and boys.
And there is no inflation and the value of the dollars always stays the same.

It's such a happy place.

LOL.

 

yup.......the good little boys get candy from uncle Ben Bernacke while the grownups get gold and silver coins

 

You are very correct, DA60!

 

And you refuse to retract your lies.

Actual unemployment data...

1933 -- 24.9% (FDR takes office in March)
1934 -- 21.7%
1935 -- 20.1%
1936 -- 16.9%
1937 -- 14.3%

In 1938, FDR allowed evil non-Keynesian voices into his head, appealing to his own natural instincts toward balanced budgets. Official unemployment numbers were as follow...

1938 -- 19.0%

FDR was not happy. He returned immediately to Keynesian policies. Official unemployment numbers were as follow...

1939 -- 17.2%
1940 -- 14.6%
1941 -- .9.9%

And when during WWII did you say the DOW dipped below 100, again?

You're a phony caught in acts of deliberate misleading and deception. So it goes with the right-wing. They don't know truth, so have no respect for it.

 

It's a prehistoric fable and fairy tale not even as well imagined as Bastiat's idiot Parable of the Broken Window. Nobody produces but that he is sure he can somewhere sell to a CONSUMER at a profit. Without the demand that a CONSUMER creates, production shuts down so as to avoid producing only all that expensive inventory. Hunters and gatherers did not go off and kill or gather more than what they needed to eat. Supply arose to meet demand. It still does. Absent the demand created by CONSUMERS, you have nothing. The store owner with shimmering, shiny product lining his gleaming shelves is not wealthy at all if no one comes into his store and BUYS SOMETHING.

 

then explain to me why one horse towns dissappear when that one industry leaves? Why as you say, can't one guy cut your hair while the next guy flip your burgers and the third guy fix your car? Why can't these towns survive just on consumption or services?

 

Show me where these towns disappear. Explain to me the economics of retirement communities or tourist meccas. Then try to explain why such situations are at all relevant to the simple fact that production and consumption are mirror images of each other. No transaction takes place unless there is buyer and a seller -- i.e., a producer and a consumer. In your internet-educated world, you grovel at the feet of one and disabuse the other. Tells you something about how far an ISP degree will take you.

 

there are so many towns that dissappear when there source of income dies. Now I am from Canada remember? But I can name several in Canada....Eliot lake being one as the uranium industry died and ever since the town is struggling to survive.

Any town, once that source of income goes away, all they can do is spend savings, once thats gone there is nothing left. A car mechanic still needs to bring in the auto parts for your car. The hamburger flipper needs to bring in the food for the restaurant.....all this is money leaving the town with no money coming in. Eventually the money runs out. The only way to stop the leakage is to find a new source of income. Going back to eliot lake they now try to attract pensioners and try to make themselves a retirement community. It has had limited success.

 

This is a very good response.

When the young people move away because there are no jobs, the town eventually dies

 

Ah, you mean they eventually aren't able to CONSUME any more.

No excuse. There are many perfectly good schools of economics in Canada. There was no need to resort to the internet.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that even if some signficant means of local production is substantially ended, local CONSUMPTION can continue on for quite some time, but if THAT should eventually cease, the show is over?

 

No, the people die. That is a demographic factor, not an economic one. Recall that the actual problem here is a failure to comprehend the basic economic premise that production and consumption are merely two sides of the same coin, leading some illogically to extol production while disparaging consumption. Creating a scenario in which you can kill off some people doesn't really address that.

 

I've been reading the posts in this thread with great interest; indeed, many of my favorite contributors are here, Liberal and Conservative alike. And with all this mental horsepower (no sarcasm meant at all), I was wondering when someone would mention war as a mechanism by which Keynesian economics can work, and work well.

If we look at FDR's New Deal, and Second New Deal, and match the events to the timeline in the latter-half of the 1930's, we cannot help but see that after FDR had thrown enormous amounts of money at the Depression, the whole spending edifice was crashing back down on itself after 1936.

Then, FDR seized the great opportunity that "saved" an economy: he prepared for war! I've said over and over that, in a perverse way, it was Adolph Hitler and the Empire of Japan who saved FDR's bacon, and this observation is borne out in the history of the time.

FDR began collaborating with Churchill and the British Conservatives as early as 1937 to get us involved in a war with Hitler. Hitler had been tolerated and promoted as a foil to Communist aspirations in Europe, but as the Nazis became the greater threat to the overall European political power structure, Britain began to find Hitler intolerable. FDR, faced with an insoluble enigma over the Depression in America saw the perfect object for his Keynesian mindset: War, and all the spending mechanisms that are an indispensible part of it! You know the rest....

Now. In the Twenty-First Century, in the Twenty-First Century reality, what is Obama (and his puppetmasters in the Federal Reserve System) going to do to resurrect the U. S. economy using Keynesian economic theory? Continue with these brushfire "wars" we've been in since WWII, like Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Start new ones in Africa, as he appears to be trying to do in Uganda? Doubtful... NOT ENOUGH TONNAGE TO RESURRECT AN ECONOMY AS BIG AS OURS.

So I ask you -- what does Obama do now? Is there anything he CAN do, or do we simply continue down a road to the diminishment of becoming just another example of "faded glory" in the coming New World Order, with its One World Economy, and then, One World Government?

 

Again, you are very mistaken, 17th.

Your understanding of commerce and economics is equivalent to that of a six year old.

Production and consumption are not two sides of the same coin.

Production does not automatically result in or lead to consumption. The Ford Edsel and the Chevrolet Volt are two imperfect examples of this fact.

Anyone with a legitimate background in commerce and economics knows for a fact production and consumption are two different coins.

Check this out.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657867_1657781,00.html

 

"The 50 Worst Cars of All Time"?

And you claim 17th's "understanding of commerce and economics is equivalent to that of a six year old."

You guys just crack me up.

 

well, once that source of savings ends what can they spend? Remember you need production and a source of income from that production in order to consune. Without production then how do you consume? Where does the money come from? Your flawed logic assumes the government can just print at will......perhaps you learned your business school at the school of zimbabwe?

 

one industry towns dissappear when that one industry town dies. Why? Simple. No more production which results in no more income. No more income results in an inability to consume! How you come up with this nonsence that somehow you can still spend spend spend without any income makes absolutely no sence at all.

PS I can assure you I do have an education in economics......do you?

 

Gerald Celente says there are patterns to watch for. Economic collapse, trade wars, currency wars, real wars!

If you look we already had the collapse in 2008, now there is a race to the bottom in terms of currency devaluations ( currency wars) we still dont have the trade wars or the real war......but if you look both Geitner and Bermacke are trying to shift blame to china and europe. They are trying to pin the blame of their failures to china for manipulating its currency and to europe for not getting financial house in order. It shall be interesting to watch if this pattern continues into the other two being trade war and then real war!