|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 2, 2013 16:45:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 3, 2013 6:06:12 GMT -8
Robert Reich is a doctrinaire Leftist/Keynesian whose understanding of the economy is not different from that of the FDR Braintrusters of the FDR era. He is still stuck in the world of 1933. His is the concept of Demand Side economics. If we just give the average consumer a big boost of government supplied money, all will be well. That was the basic concept of the stimulus of 2009. That action did not do much to boost the economy but it did increase the national debt quite a bit. If you read the book, The Forgotten Man, you will note how poorly FDR's actions really worked in his attempts to end the Depression. The unemployment rate in 1940, THIRTEEN years after the 1929 Stock Market crash of '29, was 14.6% ! ! ! ! (see www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html) On the other hand, the economy recovered quickly and robustly from the very bad recession of the early 1920s with NO government intervention . (It's ironic to note that Herbert Hoover, then Sec. of Commerce under Pres. Harding, wanted the federal government to take action to boost the economy, much as FDR did later. Harding wisely did not act on that advice.) Reich complains that the super rich are getting most of the profits from business. What the hell does he think those rich people do with their money? Stuff their greenbacks in old trunks and bury them in the back yard? No! Some of it they spend, which does help the economy. But more than that, the rich invest their money in any number of productive activities. Or simply in banks, which institutions lend out that money to others who use it to start or expand businesses. You would think that Robert Reich would have learned something about the nation's economy, but apparently not. And it's foolish to blame the economy on the Republicans. For two years, Obama had total control of the government. Anything he wanted he got. There is a reason the voters punk-slapped Obama's party in 2010. If the stimulus and other measures had worked as planned and advertised, the Dems would have done well in the mid-terms. AzWm: PS: Reich mentions Henry Ford's wage increase of 1914. What he neglects to mention is that such action was taken by a private citizen using his own money. The problem with the Left is that they think they are capable of running a business as well as (and surely with more "social justice") people such as Ford can. Ford was motivated by rational self-interest. If his wage increase had backfired, he would have had to suffer the consequences. When the government screws up the economy (e.g., Solyndra) its the taxpayer who suffers. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 3, 2013 6:52:31 GMT -8
Fine, William. You can believe what you want. I do agree with Reich and his analysis. I would rather have the economic insight of 1933, rather than the economics of 1883.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 3, 2013 8:10:02 GMT -8
Ahhh... The age old issue. Those who became brainwashed by "supply-side" economics vs. those who never were.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 3, 2013 8:10:29 GMT -8
Fine, William. You can believe what you want. I do agree with Reich and his analysis. I would rather have the economic insight of 1933, rather than the economics of 1883. The problem with 1933 is that FDR, who was no economist, tried all sorts of things, changing course this way and that, leaving business to wonder what was coming next. And FDR was even more vitriolic in criticizing business ("capital is on strike") than Obama. The Depression needn't have lasted until 1942, for god's sake. Some things work, some don't. Government should basically not try to tinker with the economy. The huge amount of Quantitative Easing that the Fed has been doing will have negative consequences, and, anyway, the real rate of unemployment is way above 10% today. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 3, 2013 8:16:35 GMT -8
Fine, William. You can believe what you want. I do agree with Reich and his analysis. I would rather have the economic insight of 1933, rather than the economics of 1883. The problem with 1933 is that FDR, who was no economist, tried all sorts of things, changing course this way and that, leaving business to wonder what was coming next. And FDR was even more vitriolic in criticizing business ("capital is on strike") than Obama. The Depression needn't have lasted until 1942, for god's sake. Some things work, some don't. Government should basically not try to tinker with the economy. The huge amount of Quantitative Easy that the Fed has been doing will have negative consequences, and, anyway, the real rate of unemployment is way above 10% today. AzWm The Depression ended in 1942, you say? Ever wonder why? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 3, 2013 14:25:05 GMT -8
Reich has his opinion, which is fine, but that is all it is. Like Krugman, he is wrong as can be.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 3, 2013 23:13:23 GMT -8
The problem with 1933 is that FDR, who was no economist, tried all sorts of things, changing course this way and that, leaving business to wonder what was coming next. And FDR was even more vitriolic in criticizing business ("capital is on strike") than Obama. The Depression needn't have lasted until 1942, for god's sake. Some things work, some don't. Government should basically not try to tinker with the economy. The huge amount of Quantitative Easy that the Fed has been doing will have negative consequences, and, anyway, the real rate of unemployment is way above 10% today. AzWm The Depression ended in 1942, you say? Ever wonder why? Having to rely on a world war in which we lost hundreds of thousands of young men killed is not what I would call an ideal way to end a depression. But you neglect one important fact. After 1945, the U.S. govt. was very moderate in spending for many years. The dollar was stable and the U.S. govt. kept debt in reasonable check. In essence, we paid off the war debt and got out of the way of industry. Not completely out of the way; that will never happen. But productive people were allowed to do what they did best. It was a couple of decades before the Progressives were able to put in place their huge increase in the size of the federal government. Just track the growth of the percentage of the U.S. economy taken by the feds and you will see what I mean. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 4, 2013 7:45:42 GMT -8
Yes, indeed, it was WW2 that ended the Depression. Of course there was no government spending involved, or government activity in that war. It was free enterprise and and capitalistic market actions that organized our war effort. Right, Mr Libertarian?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 5, 2013 21:15:05 GMT -8
Yes, indeed, it was WW2 that ended the Depression. Of course there was no government spending involved, or government activity in that war. It was free enterprise and and capitalistic market actions that organized our war effort. Right, Mr Libertarian? You are trying, I guess, to make a point that is totally obvious. Of course there was government involvement in WWII. In fact, enormous involvement, involvement that was tolerated (even by most Democrats) only because we faced a war emergency. National defense is a legitimate role for government, so it was proper that Washington should coordinate our war effort. But let's not forget that it was indeed private firms that stepped up to the plate and performed miracles in the areas of production and distribution. In that regard I think especially of Henry J. Kaiser. Kaiser's company made breakthroughs in construction techniques that made it possible to build Liberty Ships in an average time of just 45 days. Also, the automobile industry completely switched to war production in a very short time and turned out huge numbers of everything from airplanes to motors for landing craft. I think it is possible that we would not have had such a tremendous growth in the size of the U.S. federal government post 1945 had there not been a perceived second emergency, namely the Cold War. In any event, there is a place for government, just not nearly so big a place as those on the Left prefer. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 5, 2013 21:28:48 GMT -8
Yes, indeed, it was WW2 that ended the Depression. Of course there was no government spending involved, or government activity in that war. It was free enterprise and and capitalistic market actions that organized our war effort. Right, Mr Libertarian? You are trying, I guess, to make a point that is totally obvious. Of course there was government involvement in WWII. In fact, enormous involvement, involvement that was tolerated (even by most Democrats) only because we faced a war emergency. National defense is a legitimate role for government, so it was proper that Washington should coordinate our war effort. But let's not forget that it was indeed private firms that stepped up to the plate and performed miracles in the areas of production and distribution. In that regard I think especially of Henry J. Kaiser. Kaiser's company made breakthroughs in construction techniques that made it possible to build Liberty Ships in an average time of just 45 days. Also, the automobile industry completely switched to war production in a very short time and turned out huge numbers of everything from airplanes to motors for landing craft. I think it is possible that we would not have had such a tremendous growth in the size of the U.S. federal government post 1945 had there not been a perceived second emergency, namely the Cold War. In any event, there is a place for government, just not nearly so big a place as those on the Left prefer. AzWm How is it that government is only good for war? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 6, 2013 15:24:38 GMT -8
Yes, indeed, it was WW2 that ended the Depression. Of course there was no government spending involved, or government activity in that war. It was free enterprise and and capitalistic market actions that organized our war effort. Right, Mr Libertarian? Well, I guess that FDR (and Truman) had the Germans and the Japanese to thank for making sure the labor force was reduced to the point that full employment at the end of the war was a result of body bags rather than workers returning to the homeland. What a sorry argument to make, but I would expect nothing else from the left. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 6, 2013 20:18:47 GMT -8
Yes, indeed, it was WW2 that ended the Depression. Of course there was no government spending involved, or government activity in that war. It was free enterprise and and capitalistic market actions that organized our war effort. Right, Mr Libertarian? Well, I guess that FDR (and Truman) had the Germans and the Japanese to thank for making sure the labor force was reduced to the point that full employment at the end of the war was a result of body bags rather than workers returning to the homeland. What a sorry argument to make, but I would expect nothing else from the left. I am so sorry my point eludes. Quit drinking. Things might become more clear. I will be honest. I lost friends to alcohol. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 7, 2013 15:33:07 GMT -8
Yes, indeed, it was WW2 that ended the Depression. Of course there was no government spending involved, or government activity in that war. It was free enterprise and and capitalistic market actions that organized our war effort. Right, Mr Libertarian? You are trying, I guess, to make a point that is totally obvious. Of course there was government involvement in WWII. In fact, enormous involvement, involvement that was tolerated (even by most Democrats) only because we faced a war emergency. National defense is a legitimate role for government, so it was proper that Washington should coordinate our war effort. But let's not forget that it was indeed private firms that stepped up to the plate and performed miracles in the areas of production and distribution. In that regard I think especially of Henry J. Kaiser. Kaiser's company made breakthroughs in construction techniques that made it possible to build Liberty Ships in an average time of just 45 days. Also, the automobile industry completely switched to war production in a very short time and turned out huge numbers of everything from airplanes to motors for landing craft. I think it is possible that we would not have had such a tremendous growth in the size of the U.S. federal government post 1945 had there not been a perceived second emergency, namely the Cold War. In any event, there is a place for government, just not nearly so big a place as those on the Left prefer. AzWm Private did not "step up the plate". They ordered to the plate. It seems you are not knowledgable about the economy during WW2. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 8, 2013 7:05:06 GMT -8
Well, I guess that FDR (and Truman) had the Germans and the Japanese to thank for making sure the labor force was reduced to the point that full employment at the end of the war was a result of body bags rather than workers returning to the homeland. What a sorry argument to make, but I would expect nothing else from the left. I am so sorry my point eludes. Quit drinking. Things might become more clear. I will be honest. I lost friends to alcohol. I see, no answer. The idea that our private industry was able to convert to war time production was our main advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 8, 2013 7:11:55 GMT -8
I am so sorry my point eludes. Quit drinking. Things might become more clear. I will be honest. I lost friends to alcohol. I see, no answer. The idea that our private industry was able to convert to war time production was our main advantage. At the direction of the government. |
|
