Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Aug '11 05:52
    In 1937, politics and an aggressive Republican campaign caused FDR to "compromise" and cut spending. For the first time since he became President in 1937, the GDP declined, unemployment increased, and basically the economy sank until FDR resumed the Keynesian policies, gradually climbing out of the Depression.

    Well, with this deal pulling massive amounts of money out of the economy, which is projected to cost 1.8 million jobs by 2012, we are in another "1937 Moment."

    From the Financial Times:

    “Unless we are missing something the US is one false move away from a recession,” says Jim Reid, strategist at Deutsche Bank, who has warned the US could be approaching a “1937 moment” – when authorities removed post-Depression stimuli from still-fragile markets and triggered another recession. This risk, he says, has in fact only been magnified in the markets’ eyes by the agreement on raising the US debt ceiling.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d80222d6-bcfb-11e0-bdb1-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fd80222d6-bcfb-11e0-bdb1-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2F
  2. 03 Aug '11 08:02 / 1 edit
    WTF?
    Does someone pay just to come on here and just say stupid things hoping the brain dead morons believe you.

    FDR's policies CAUSED the economy to get worse in the late 30s. GDP was on a constant trend upward until FDR came along and then it started going down. It didn't start going up again until the build up for WW II started. Unemployment peaked two years AFTER he became President.

    We've been doing this Keynesian crap for over a decade now. I say its time to go back to what we know works instead of beating a dead horse.

    Keynesianism CAUSED the Great Depression, it caused the stagflation of the 70s (which Keynesians said was impossible) and its caused the economy of the last decade. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that taking money out of the economy will not cause the economy to grow.

    But then again, we all know Barack "57 states" Obama isn't exactly a rocket scientist.
  3. 03 Aug '11 09:31
    Originally posted by savage4731
    WTF?
    Does someone pay just to come on here and just say stupid things hoping the brain dead morons believe you.

    FDR's policies CAUSED the economy to get worse in the late 30s. GDP was on a constant trend upward until FDR came along and then it started going down. It didn't start going up again until the build up for WW II started. Unemployment peak ...[text shortened]...

    But then again, we all know Barack "57 states" Obama isn't exactly a rocket scientist.
    Yeah, cutting taxes during a booming economy is real Keynesian.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Aug '11 10:07
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yeah, cutting taxes during a booming economy is real Keynesian.
    Keynesian is in the eye of the hyperboler.
  5. 03 Aug '11 11:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by savage4731
    WTF?
    Does someone pay just to come on here and just say stupid things hoping the brain dead morons believe you.

    FDR's policies CAUSED the economy to get worse in the late 30s. GDP was on a constant trend upward until FDR came along and then it started going down. It didn't start going up again until the build up for WW II started. Unemployment peak

    But then again, we all know Barack "57 states" Obama isn't exactly a rocket scientist.
    Actually we all know it would take someone really stupid, I mean that special kind of window licking stupid to actually think that wasn't a simple misstatement.

    Not surprising you can't even read what you're responding to.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Aug '11 11:53
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    In 1937, politics and an aggressive Republican campaign caused FDR to "compromise" and cut spending. For the first time since he became President in 1937, the GDP declined, unemployment increased, and basically the economy sank until FDR resumed the Keynesian policies, gradually climbing out of the Depression.

    Well, with this deal pulling massive amounts ...[text shortened]... 2Fd80222d6-bcfb-11e0-bdb1-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2F
    Right... because 1935 and 1936 were such wonderful times for the American economy. It's a shame it had to be ruined in 1937.

    C'mon, Kunsoo. They didn't call that era the "great boom."
  7. 03 Aug '11 12:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Right... because 1935 and 1936 were such wonderful times for the American economy. It's a shame it had to be ruined in 1937.

    C'mon, Kunsoo. They didn't call that era the "great boom."
    I often find myself asking, "What would Keynes do", thoughout my day. In fact, I often ask the same about FDR. I'm not so sure about Keynes, but FDR is not so hard to figure out. FDR would ban collective barganning and raise the retirement age to about 78. Oh, and he would probably throw all the Muslims into a concentration camp. Other than that I dunno.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Aug '11 13:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    I often find myself asking, "What would Keynes do", thoughout my day. In fact, I often ask the same about FDR. I'm not so sure about Keynes, but FDR is not so hard to figure out. FDR would ban collective barganning and raise the retirement age to about 78. Oh, and he would probably throw all the Muslims into a concentration camp. Other than that I dunno.
    Don't forget that he'd use American power in every sphere he could think of to promote American interests abroad and that he's have no problem sending US soldiers overseas to topple foreign governments.
  9. 03 Aug '11 14:21
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    In 1937, politics and an aggressive Republican campaign caused FDR to "compromise" and cut spending. For the first time since he became President in 1937, the GDP declined, unemployment increased, and basically the economy sank until FDR resumed the Keynesian policies, gradually climbing out of the Depression.

    Well, with this deal pulling massive amounts ...[text shortened]... 2Fd80222d6-bcfb-11e0-bdb1-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2F
    Admittedly I don't have much macro-economics training. I bought one book from the bookstore, the only book the Barnes and Noble had. Clearly, Americans in general are not buying a lot of books on Macro-economics, although everyone seems confident they know exactly how a country prospers.

    But I'm inclined to fall back on basic horse sense. If a country spends more than it takes in, it doesn't seem like that can last. If I ran my own budget that way, I'd have some very happy kids, but there'd be a lot of grief somewhere down the road.

    Maybe I'm missing something. 70 million macro economic experts that voted for Obama can't be wrong. They all agree that Bush didn't tax enough and the resulting deficit nearly ruined us. Now Obama is forced to run a bigger deficit to fix us. That must be obvious to those of you with extensive macro economic training, but for me, it hasn't quite clicked yet. It seems like that if our solutions were as simple as the government spending more, then every country would be prosperous and no country in history would have collapsed. Zimbabwe would be doing fine. If the only hard part was to find a way to spend more, what could be easier than that?

    Sometimes truth is counter-intuitive, but here are some things I would think would be obvious:

    1. A government must spend no more than what it takes in over the long term in order to be economically secure.

    2. A government can only tax a certain amount before destroying productivity. No one is going to work hard just to they can turn over their gains to be spent at the discretion of the government, elected or not.

    3. You don't create wealth by creating "money". The government could easily create enough money to make every man, woman, and child in the country a billionaire. But no one will be rich because of it. If everyone is wealthy, no one has to work. If no one is working, then no one is making cars, airplanes, or even growing food. The end result would be that even billionaires would have to grow their own food just to avoid starvation.
  10. 03 Aug '11 15:26
    A little trivia. ONE time the country was debt free. This was under Andrew Jackson, who hated debt and went on a big slashing spree. This was quickly followed up by a 6 year long depression.
  11. 03 Aug '11 15:37
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    A little trivia. ONE time the country was debt free. This was under Andrew Jackson, who hated debt and went on a big slashing spree. This was quickly followed up by a 6 year long depression.
    and this is justification to have a debt of more than $14,300,000,000,000?
  12. 03 Aug '11 15:47
    Originally posted by quackquack
    and this is justification to have a debt of more than $14,300,000,000,000?
    Although it might be more convenient for you, that's not the point I was making at all.
  13. 03 Aug '11 16:01
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yeah, cutting taxes during a booming economy is real Keynesian.
    Who are you saying did that? Certainly not Bush. The economy was in the toilet before Bush took office.

    Besides there's a big difference between what Keynes actually said and how these morons carry it out Keynes wasn't a socialist and did advocate tax cuts under certain circumstances.
  14. 03 Aug '11 16:12
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Actually we all know it would take someone really stupid, I mean that special kind of window licking stupid to actually think that wasn't a simple misstatement.

    Not surprising you can't even read what you're responding to.
    Given that :

    1) Obama didn't realize it was a mistake until long after the fact when he was told.

    and
    2)All the other stupid things he's said (Europe is a country, Austrian is a language, His father served in WWII at the age of ten, the US liberated Aushcwitz etc.)

    and
    3) The absolutely moronic way he's destroyed the US economy.


    I think you can only conclude that Obama is a moron and him thinking that there are 57 states is only proof of that.
  15. 03 Aug '11 16:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by savage4731
    Given that :

    1) Obama didn't realize it was a mistake until long after the fact when he was told.

    and
    2)All the other stupid things he's said (Europe is a country, Austrian is a language, His father served in WWII at the age of ten, the US liberated Aushcwitz etc.)

    and
    3) The absolutely moronic way he's destroyed the US economy.


    I think ...[text shortened]... nclude that Obama is a moron and him thinking that there are 57 states is only proof of that.
    Let's take these one at a time.

    First, back your claim he didn't realize it was a mistake.