| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tuneful
United States327 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives. The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.  | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:16 Navi wrote: its the whole damn (political) teaching agenda, more liberal teachers i have known put more and more credit to FDR for solving the whole damn depression while more right wing teachers take shit away from his credit and some just blatantly state that he made it worse and that had the economy been left alone it would have gotten "better" than it would have done without him and keynes etc. btw i liked how many times you said face in your last sentence :3 FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409 On November 02 2010 10:19 Tuneful wrote: Consumer spending reflects incomes and ease of credit, so yeah, GDP does have something to do with employment. Consumer spending reflects lack of savings and debt accrued. Wealth is not created by spending money, but by investing and saving. | ||
|
Navi
5286 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:15 SnK-Arcbound wrote: GDP has nothing to do with unemployment, or wealth creation. GDP =CGI, consumer spending, government and investment. Decrease consumer spending and investment and increase government, the population is poorer, but GDP goes up. Amazing how math works. What you demonstrated is absolutely nothing. I never said that Hoover did anything right. But if you want to explain how Keynes didn't create 10 year of unemployement and depression when his policy was used, that is entirely up to you. what is this.... just because the government increased spending does not mean that consumer spending was decreased at all. in fact a couple of the programs, such as the famous CCC and its nowadays slightly less so (but even bigger) brother program, the WPA, were directly involved in improving consumer spending via giving jobs. the more money flow, the stronger the economy. a very dangerous notion going around during the depression was the notion that "the banks aren't safe, the best thing we can do to look out for our future is to save money under the mattress and use it sparingly to survive". this would only help to ruin the private sector and thus eventually the majority of the economy. keynes and his ideas of public sector fiscal policy influenced the very heart of the new deal, and several of the new deal policies aided in stimulating the economy in the way that the CCC and the WPA were able to. and if you don't think that they contributed much, the WPA was clocking in at about 10 billion (i believe?) at around the 42s-43s. | ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:25 Tuneful wrote: The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here. what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read. we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mR-m2iPsjKs/SZlLjR9kSiI/AAAAAAAAH0g/dptC2LIodek/s400/2009-02-16-USUnemployment_1930_1950d.jpg) oh look at that unemployment is falling during FDR's term. what a coincidence. btw pump out huge amounts of money in government spending projects and consumer spending and investment will go up as a function of the multiplier. this is a ridiculous "conversation". employment, GDP and living conditions improved because of keynesian theory which is supported econometrically. your argument boils down to "nuh uh didnt happen that way because I say it didnt". btw i liked how many times you said face in your last sentence :3 just thinking about libertarianism decreases my lucidity. I suspect that idiocy is contagious to some degree. read a book, and not one by a hack like Haszlitt but by a real economist like Stiglitz or Blanchard. FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate unfortunately for you Ive actually read the paper. they did not count any job created by new deal policy. add those jobs in, and their claims are statistically unsupportable. you should read the criticisms of the things you put out there as evidence before you do, btw. there are people out there who are "scientists" who put out similar bullshit to deny global warming. no one takes them seriously. and just as fast as you can check the wikipedia page for criticisms of FDR I can find you someone who will systematically destroy that paper: http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:25 Tuneful wrote: The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here. wat even Somalia has ISPs | ||
|
Navi
5286 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:31 red_b wrote: oh look at that unemployment is falling during FDR's term. what a coincidence. btw pump out huge amounts of money in government spending projects and consumer spending and investment will go up as a function of the multiplier. this is a ridiculous "conversation". employment, GDP and living conditions improved because of keynesian theory which is supported econometrically. your argument boils down to "nuh uh didnt happen that way because I say it didnt". just thinking about libertarianism decreases my lucidity. I suspect that idiocy is contagious to some degree. read a book, and not one by a hack like Haszlitt but by a real economist like Stiglitz or Blanchard. unfortunately for you Ive actually read the paper. they did not count any job created by new deal policy. add those jobs in, and their claims are statistically unsupportable. you should read the criticisms of the things you put out there as evidence before you do, btw. there are people out there who are "scientists" who put out similar bullshit to deny global warming. no one takes them seriously. and just as fast as you can check the wikipedia page for criticisms of FDR I can find you someone who will systematically destroy that paper: http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked ya i helped write a dissertation on how nobody fucking counted the WPA in statistics... its so ridiculous they provided what, 7-8 million jobs over a 8 year tenure? It was the largest employer in the country when it was ended... I find it so ridiculous hahaha | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:31 red_b wrote: oh look at that unemployment is falling during FDR's term. what a coincidence. btw pump out huge amounts of money in government spending projects and consumer spending and investment will go up as a function of the multiplier. this is a ridiculous "conversation". employment, GDP and living conditions improved because of keynesian theory which is supported econometrically. Living conditions improved because of deflation. And pumping out huge amounts of money increases inflation, and if the dollar is inflating I wouldn't want to hold onto dollars either, and would invest it so I try to lose as little value as possible. unfortunately for you Ive actually read the paper. they did not count any job created by new deal policy. add those jobs in, and their claims are statistically unsupportable. you should read the criticisms of the things you put out there as evidence before you do, btw. there are people out there who are "scientists" who put out similar bullshit to deny global warming. no one takes them seriously. Digging holes and filling them back up aren't jobs. They are the equivilent of unemployment checks, because employment is productive, what FDR did wasn't. Again, unemployment fell but they weren't productive jobs, which is why the depression was extended by a huge margin. But I'm not going to pull the thread off topic anymore. Enjoy the coming depression, because you are insane if you expect different results from doing the same thing. | ||
|
Navi
5286 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:25 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Consumer spending reflects lack of savings and debt accrued. Wealth is not created by spending money, but by investing and saving. but a lack of consumer spending, as was often the case during the great depression, was due to the fact that they had no fucking money in the first place. you can't apply regular economics to the great depression; it was an anomaly, and i think it ridiculous to treat it as if it wasn't. another point was that people stopped investing for sure (and many people had very little to "save") due to the complete change in attitude post stock market crash. i have no problem with different views on the depression, and as to whether or not different ways of working to fix it would have been more effective than those that had been utilized. But it really grinds my gears when people apply their regular logic to the great depression without attempting to have any scope as to how the people in that time were feeling and the general attitude and mood of the economy and its people. There is a reason why it is the "great" depression, it is on a far different scale than any modern recession that we see today in an industrialized society. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
I am still amazed Paultards\Austrians\unsocialized people in general still think government spending didn't end the depression, as a side note. | ||
|
LOLtex
United States148 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:06 red_b wrote: You are demonstrably wrong: ![[image loading]](http://www.urbandigs.com/great-depression-gdp.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/images/avgimages/graph1930-1939.gif) ![[image loading]](http://www.economicshelp.org/uploaded_images/Gdp-us-20-40-767020.jpg) FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong. Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics. Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school? When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face. One of the reasons the world doesn't take economists seriously is because of statements like this. The notion that economics is so perfectly understood that you can correlate FDR's takeover in 1933 with a positive increase in GDP (which is easily debatable as a "reliable measure" of an economy) is absurd. Economics is not as black and white like you think it is. I don't know what "libertarians" did to you to make you so butthurt, but not all of them are idiots. Take Milton Friedman for example. Keynesian economics is also not perfect, just look up stagflation of the 70's, which Friedman predicted as a possible outcome of Keynesian thought. Post late 1970's, Keynes theory was albeit rejected from most major governments in favor of Friedman economics, but with the latest recession, Keynes is seeing a comeback (so no, it has not been the predominant thought since the 30's). I think that different schools of thought formulate after some sort of catastrophic financial event occurs, when everyone is scrambling around trying to figure out why it happened so they can attempt to prevent it again. I'm a fan of Friedman economics, but I'm not naive enough to think any one school explains an economy perfectly. I'm anxious to see where economics goes after this recession is over, but it does look like Keynes is coming back with a vengeance. | ||
|
Navi
5286 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:42 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Living conditions improved because of deflation. And pumping out huge amounts of money increases inflation, and if the dollar is inflating I wouldn't want to hold onto dollars either, and would invest it so I try to lose as little value as possible. Digging holes and filling them back up aren't jobs. They are the equivilent of unemployment checks, because employment is productive, what FDR did wasn't. Again, unemployment fell but they weren't productive jobs, which is why the depression was extended by a huge margin. But I'm not going to pull the thread off topic anymore. Enjoy the coming depression, because you are insane if you expect different results from doing the same thing. one of the main agendas of the WPA was to provide training for its members for new skills as to best aid them in a longer run. and construction in the public sector isn't productive while building houses in the private sector is? if there ever was a "job" to dig up a hole and fill it up again without trees or structural support, I would love to see some evidence of it. the man gives you evidence and you reply with that it is the "equivilent" of unemployment checks, when many would argue that they really were not. and what i seem to find that people seem to ignore in the face of sheer numbers that some of the greatest value that people attributed to these "unemployment checks" were the food and shelter that they were able to provide, even in the short term. When there are many people struggling to make a living, the difference in morale and money that even a small, seemingly part time job can make is huge. the lack of perspective that people (other than relatives of people who have lived through the depression) have of the individual in such an economic catastrophe is unsettling. i'm done with this as well, happy discussion-ing  | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:42 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Enjoy the coming depression, because you are insane if you expect different results from doing the same thing. I am going to save this in a notepad titled "SnK-Arcbound" and I'll get back to you in a few years. Challenge accepted. Side note again, deflation improved the standard of living? Oh Lord he doesn't even know total spending = total income. | ||
|
sOvrn
United States678 Posts
On November 02 2010 09:27 NovaTheFeared wrote: My question to you is what kinds of bills do you think the President and a new Republican Congress can work on together? It seems like big-ticket progressive legislation such as an energy bill with cap and trade in it are completely dead. The only thing I've heard commentators talking about are smaller items like free trade deals which Republicans are more likely to support. Discuss, speculate, report! I really hope the new congress can work with the president on an immigration bill. We need a bill to settle this issue and help the undocumented ppl living here while protecting our border and getting immigration from our southern border under control. Hopefully we can get something done between the two parties on this important issue since the democrats alone have completely ignored this issue favoring to focus instead on health care and climate change legislation. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:47 Romantic wrote: Voted straight Democrat. I'll take stupid over evil any day. I am still amazed Paultards\Austrians\unsocialized people in general still think government spending didn't end the depression, as a side note. Austrians are pretty whacky, but it wasn't government spending that ended the depression. It was getting rid of the gold standard. See Christina Romer, What Ended The Great Depression. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:42 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Living conditions improved because of deflation. And pumping out huge amounts of money increases inflation, and if the dollar is inflating I wouldn't want to hold onto dollars either, and would invest it so I try to lose as little value as possible. Digging holes and filling them back up aren't jobs. They are the equivilent of unemployment checks, because employment is productive, what FDR did wasn't. Again, unemployment fell but they weren't productive jobs, which is why the depression was extended by a huge margin. But I'm not going to pull the thread off topic anymore. Enjoy the coming depression, because you are insane if you expect different results from doing the same thing. You may not understand why, but your arguments are contradictory. Allow me to explain. You claim that there is deflation. OK, that's fine, because there was. Deflation was almost certainly a result of reduced prices because of a drop in aggregate demand, which is universally considered as the largest problem during the depression. But then you make a crowding out argument. There will not be crowding out when the economy is underemployed enough that there is deflation. Crowding out occurs when the economy is at near efficient levels of employment, not dramatically lower levels of employment. The coming depression will come on the back of libertarians, just like the last one. And how do you distinguish between productive and nonproductive jobs? It just seems to be that any government job is nonproductive because its from the government. That is unsupported by micro theory so that's not an acceptable argument in the post 70s economics world. The depression was not extended. GDP shrunk at a decreased rate. That is evidence that the policies were working. | ||
|
lithiumsorbet
United States24 Posts
On a more relevant note: regardless of policies from 70-80 years ago, I think Obama definitely does not lead as much as FDR. As inspiring as he was during the election, his two years thus far have been marked by increasing partisan bickering and contentious legislation. The whole "let them eat cake" mentality of the administration is a major turn-off; his party will suffer as a result. I'm not a big fan of either. meh. | ||
|
Tuneful
United States327 Posts
On November 02 2010 10:30 pfods wrote: what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read. we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke. Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp." | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
| ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
Post late 1970's, Keynes theory was albeit rejected from most major governments in favor of Friedman economics, but with the latest recession, Keynes is seeing a comeback (so no, it has not been the predominant thought since the 30's). Friedman's version of economics never displaced neoclassical synthesis as the main theoretical background taught at the university level. And for all the stuff Friedman said, much of it proved to be incorrect. There is significant video of him saying that socialized medicine would break countries and here we are in 2010 and the best systems all have some degree of socialization. and what is the deal with so many people saying that output levels are a poor measure of economic performance? this must be the one of the new conservative excuses for why their policies blow ass so hard. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
Code For Giants Cup
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
