Capitalism / Consumerism ?
-
Chris Austin wrote:
I find this whole discussion entirely fun
Likewise, and with Zep and Carson here, it is also informative. And not a bad word in sight. :-D
Chris Austin wrote:
Does it have to be for a rainy day?
No it doesn't. But that is an expression. See Here[^]. For example, your washing machine is just out of warranty, there is nothing wrong with it at the moment. However, as God made little green apples (another unfortunate expression), some day it is going to go wrong, and always when you most need it. Saving money for a rainy day will enable that washing machine to be repaired (or replaced) sooner rather than later.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
No it doesn't. But that is an expression. See Here[^]. For example, your washing machine is just out of warranty, there is nothing wrong with it at the moment. However, as God made little green apples (another unfortunate expression), some day it is going to go wrong, and always when you most need it. Saving money for a rainy day will enable that washing machine to be repaired (or replaced) sooner rather than later.
Oh sure, I get where you are coming from and am familiar with the expression. I probably was unclear. What I meant to ask is the following: Is it okay, by your reckoning, to save for things beyond the rainy day i.e. purchases. Another real example is that my wife and I have a rainy day savings account that is entirely separated from our other accounts. But, in our day to day accounts we try to save for large purchases so that when the bill comes in we just pay it off and sleep well at night. In the porch example I gave earlier, we will end up saving more than what many people may consider a modest amount in order to make the purchase.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
No it doesn't. But that is an expression. See Here[^]. For example, your washing machine is just out of warranty, there is nothing wrong with it at the moment. However, as God made little green apples (another unfortunate expression), some day it is going to go wrong, and always when you most need it. Saving money for a rainy day will enable that washing machine to be repaired (or replaced) sooner rather than later.
Oh sure, I get where you are coming from and am familiar with the expression. I probably was unclear. What I meant to ask is the following: Is it okay, by your reckoning, to save for things beyond the rainy day i.e. purchases. Another real example is that my wife and I have a rainy day savings account that is entirely separated from our other accounts. But, in our day to day accounts we try to save for large purchases so that when the bill comes in we just pay it off and sleep well at night. In the porch example I gave earlier, we will end up saving more than what many people may consider a modest amount in order to make the purchase.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Personally, I prefer to save for something, I am not a fan of using credit for the sake of. Just recently (last month or so) I have purchased 2 x Toshiba Satellite L300-1AS Laptops and a Colour Laser printer. Paid cash for them, and also paid my quarterly gas and electric bills. Not much change from £1400 and no need whatsoever to use any of my guaranteed overdraft or credit cards nor to pull in any financial resources from other savings. I did not need to buy those laptops then, it could have waited, but I did get a good discount from their usual price (over £100 off each). So, yes, I'm all in favour of saving no matter how dark the clouds look on that horizon, and more so if very large expenditure is expected.
-
Oakman wrote:
putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding
If that is for a rainy day then I suppose if it is a modest amount then that presumably would be fine. Not that the amount you could earn from it is worth very much considering what base rates are. But are those political animals following their own advice or is it a case of "do as I say but not as I do". Anyhow, during the early 1990's there was a fall in the value of houses, although this was accompanied by very much higher interest rates, people found themselves in negative equity but the majority stayed put and rode out the storm. And with government help (e.g. The Real Estate Rescue Plan), there is no reason to believe this storm can't be ridden with the same or similar kind-of spirit. I fully appreciate that events on the ground are not at all similar, but sooner or later that light at the end of the tunnel will be spotted and it will get brighter.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If that is for a rainy day then I suppose if it is a modest amount then that presumably would be fine.
Any amount should be. Money in a savings account is available to the bank to be invested. They do that either by loaning the money out or buying some instrument that pays them a better rate of interest than they're paying to the savings account. In any case, somewhere along the line, savings is loaned out to someone who uses it to purchase goods - something he can't afford to pay for out of a single paycheck. My point is, it gets spent. The no-necks in Congress seem to think that if I keep a few thousand in a savings account, the bank has that money downstairs in the vault and isn't passing it along. But, according to what I understand, that's what banks are for: using capital to fund worthwhile capital expenditures. Some people go to a bank as say, "I have some extra capital," how much will you pay me for the use of it? And some people come to the bank and say, "I want to fund this great idea, how much will you charge me for the use of your capital?" The problem has come about it seems to me is two-fold: A. Banks have been allowed to pretend they have ten times more capital that they actually have available. In some circles this is called leveraging. In others it is called lying through your teeth. And B. People have been allowed by banks to use their capital even though no-one in their right mind could think they were able ever to pay it back. In some circles this is called absolute idiocy; in Congress it is called expanding the opportunities for home ownership. Now since banks can count all of the loans they made as assets and they're loaning out money (and charging for the loan) at 10 times the rate they are taking it in (and paying to take it in) their balance sheets look great! Until someone stops paying on a loan - the banks of course, knew this might happen so they insured the loan against that contingency. As Zep pointed out, they probably did everything in their power to default the loan, because they insured it for (in some cases) up to sixty times it's value :wtf: But now a whole bunch of loans made to people who should never have gotten them are being defaulted on and when the banks go to the insurance companies (one, really, AIG) to collect their insurance, they discover that it has been leveraging, too - and it can't pay off on a tenth of what it has promised to hand out. What I have been trying to under
-
Oakman wrote:
The point I'm getting around to is that putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding, though an awful lot of the unibrowed politicans are starting to talk as if it is.
Really? Who have you heard starting down that road? I've stopped reading the paper or watching the news lately so I am sure I've missed it. OT. I forgot to followup with you on Variable Star. It was the fist book written by Spider Robinson that I had read and I have to say, Spider is one hell of a story teller. I failed to resist the urge to run out and get more of his books and disturb my book queue. I ended up reading Very Bad Deaths just after finishing Variable Star and found it a very fun story. Fourtantly, I was able to regain control and get back to the reading list. Now I am reading Anathem by Stephenson and enjoying it.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Chris Austin wrote:
Who have you heard starting down that road?
Are you sitting down? Barney Frank.
Chris Austin wrote:
It was the first book written by Spider Robinson that I had read and I have to say, Spider is one hell of a story teller.
My feeling is that he's gone down hill, in part because he's switched from short stories which are, I think, his natural millieu, to novels which pay much better. I recommend some of his early "Callahan" books and even stop by alt.callahans if you want to experience something quite fascinating. Recently I've been reading Ian Douglas - novels based on the idea that the Navy, not the Airforce is the natural service to control our space fleet and take the marines out there with them. The first in the series has the US fighting off an attack from Mexico which is backed by the UN (relocated to Geneva) and France which tries to take over the joint Russo-American Mars colony under the blue and white flag of the UN. Nothing deep there, but fun reading 'em and he gets the feelings of men in combat down pretty well.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If that is for a rainy day then I suppose if it is a modest amount then that presumably would be fine.
Any amount should be. Money in a savings account is available to the bank to be invested. They do that either by loaning the money out or buying some instrument that pays them a better rate of interest than they're paying to the savings account. In any case, somewhere along the line, savings is loaned out to someone who uses it to purchase goods - something he can't afford to pay for out of a single paycheck. My point is, it gets spent. The no-necks in Congress seem to think that if I keep a few thousand in a savings account, the bank has that money downstairs in the vault and isn't passing it along. But, according to what I understand, that's what banks are for: using capital to fund worthwhile capital expenditures. Some people go to a bank as say, "I have some extra capital," how much will you pay me for the use of it? And some people come to the bank and say, "I want to fund this great idea, how much will you charge me for the use of your capital?" The problem has come about it seems to me is two-fold: A. Banks have been allowed to pretend they have ten times more capital that they actually have available. In some circles this is called leveraging. In others it is called lying through your teeth. And B. People have been allowed by banks to use their capital even though no-one in their right mind could think they were able ever to pay it back. In some circles this is called absolute idiocy; in Congress it is called expanding the opportunities for home ownership. Now since banks can count all of the loans they made as assets and they're loaning out money (and charging for the loan) at 10 times the rate they are taking it in (and paying to take it in) their balance sheets look great! Until someone stops paying on a loan - the banks of course, knew this might happen so they insured the loan against that contingency. As Zep pointed out, they probably did everything in their power to default the loan, because they insured it for (in some cases) up to sixty times it's value :wtf: But now a whole bunch of loans made to people who should never have gotten them are being defaulted on and when the banks go to the insurance companies (one, really, AIG) to collect their insurance, they discover that it has been leveraging, too - and it can't pay off on a tenth of what it has promised to hand out. What I have been trying to under
This link is to a powerpoint presentation. Have a look at it, it is informative. Why we need a new Economics[^]. I can easily understand why Obama and Zep agree that government fiscal measures are required. But, in the last few months huge sums of money has been delivered or promised. The banks STILL have not taken the hint that they must start doing their job by lending it out. There are small and medium sized firms around the world who are crying out for this ability to borrow. If banks do not start doing their job pretty soon, those essential companies are at risk of failure, and those companies are the silent heroes (the life blood of a nation) insofar that without them, capitalism dies a quick death and no amount of money for General Motors, Sony... will make a blind bit of difference. This begs a question, that if the banks refuse to lend, why should the ordinary citizen try to help shorten this financial nightmare by spend their savings. Confidence is at a low point, and I'm not sure where to find, or look, for any silver linings. I commented to Zep the other day that the current system is perhaps irrevocably broken and a new system should be researched but Zep essentially disagreed that view, but, alas I am not the only person voicing that view.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Who have you heard starting down that road?
Are you sitting down? Barney Frank.
Chris Austin wrote:
It was the first book written by Spider Robinson that I had read and I have to say, Spider is one hell of a story teller.
My feeling is that he's gone down hill, in part because he's switched from short stories which are, I think, his natural millieu, to novels which pay much better. I recommend some of his early "Callahan" books and even stop by alt.callahans if you want to experience something quite fascinating. Recently I've been reading Ian Douglas - novels based on the idea that the Navy, not the Airforce is the natural service to control our space fleet and take the marines out there with them. The first in the series has the US fighting off an attack from Mexico which is backed by the UN (relocated to Geneva) and France which tries to take over the joint Russo-American Mars colony under the blue and white flag of the UN. Nothing deep there, but fun reading 'em and he gets the feelings of men in combat down pretty well.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Are you sitting down? Barney Frank.
sigh. I knew he had been on the banks for hoarding, now he is hounding people who are trying to be sensible?
Oakman wrote:
I recommend some of his early "Callahan" books and even stop by alt.callahans if you want to experience something quite fascinating.
I've heard that before, I'll have to check it out.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
John Carson wrote:
By convention, profit only refers to the income of firms.
I believe you meant to say the difference from the income and expense of firms, didn't you? We have a very good word for income and that word is income. ;)
John Carson wrote:
then you would need to treat those incomes consistently.
An excellent point. And one you are right to bring up. Be that as it may, I was actually trying to define savings as a method of accumulating capital - which, it seemed to me was the definition of profit that was being offered. I have no trouble accepting someone else's definitions of terms, as long as those definitions don't change as the discussion progresses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
I believe you meant to say the difference from the income and expense of firms, didn't you? We have a very good word for income and that word is income.
Alas, accountants have created confusion. They use income with two meanings: revenue and profit. For economists, a firm's income generally is the same thing as its profit. This is consistent with national income accounting, whereby the share of firms in national income is given by their profit, not their revenue.
Oakman wrote:
I was actually trying to define savings as a method of accumulating capital - which, it seemed to me was the definition of profit that was being offered.
It wasn't the definition of profit being offered by me. To quote myself: "That profit may in principle be used either for capital accumulation or for capitalist consumption." If your point is that "workers" may save, thereby accumulate capital and thereby receive a return on that capital, making them "capitalists" in some sense, then I agree.
John Carson
-
This link is to a powerpoint presentation. Have a look at it, it is informative. Why we need a new Economics[^]. I can easily understand why Obama and Zep agree that government fiscal measures are required. But, in the last few months huge sums of money has been delivered or promised. The banks STILL have not taken the hint that they must start doing their job by lending it out. There are small and medium sized firms around the world who are crying out for this ability to borrow. If banks do not start doing their job pretty soon, those essential companies are at risk of failure, and those companies are the silent heroes (the life blood of a nation) insofar that without them, capitalism dies a quick death and no amount of money for General Motors, Sony... will make a blind bit of difference. This begs a question, that if the banks refuse to lend, why should the ordinary citizen try to help shorten this financial nightmare by spend their savings. Confidence is at a low point, and I'm not sure where to find, or look, for any silver linings. I commented to Zep the other day that the current system is perhaps irrevocably broken and a new system should be researched but Zep essentially disagreed that view, but, alas I am not the only person voicing that view.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Have a look at it, it is informative
I looked for awhile, but even though I have a very understanding boss, I don't think I should spend as long as that takes at one sitting. I'll look at it more later.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The banks STILL have not taken the hint that they must start doing their job by lending it out.
In all honesty, I wouldn't lend out a lot of money right now either. The banks got into trouble by making stupidly bad loans. Some really respected people have seen their reputations and their careers go down the toilet for giving money to people who were not credit worthy. Now, banks are being damned because they don't want to loan money to people who, because of the problems with the economy, cannot be considered credit worthy. They will "do their job," I believe. If someone can put down 30% on a house, he'll be able to get a mortage from just about any bank - at very favorable rates. If you want to buy a new car, you can still do so if you have a decent credit score, and/or if you have a nice fat down payment.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I'm not sure where to find, or look, for any silver linings.
Me, either. It's easy to identify the problems, with only a little thought. It's much harder to have faith in the tried and true economic theories that propose that doing A and B guarantees C. They say that the mistake generals make over and over again is that set up their defenses to protect themselves against the tactics the enemy used in the last war. (As you probably know, the Maginot Line was supposed to prove an insurmountable obstacle to Germany at the beginning of WWII. They didn't pause for even a day.) I think that I am beginning to detect a similar shortsightedness in those who propose solutions for the troubles. Indeed, a great deal of time is spent arguing about whether the New Deal helped or hurt and that predates the Maginot Line by years!
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
the current system is perhaps irrevocably broken and a new system should be researched
I sometimes fear that I will begin to remind people of fat_boy, with a bee in my bonnet about the devaluing of our currencies, but it appears to me that our modern-day problems are triggered by the ending of the Breton Woods agreement in the late sixties and early 7
-
Lee Humphries wrote:
studying the Great Depression makes you realise that doing nothing, doing too little or doing it too late are the most moronic ideas of all.
A study of the great depression would establish to a sane, unbiased mind that stimulus spending just does not work. Doing nothing at all in 1929, or later, would have completely prevented the great depression. The markets would have corrected themselves in their own way and things would have been fine within a year or two. Calvin Cooledge proved that during the '20s. As to consumerism, it is a natual product of capitalism. The only problem we have is that consumers believe themselves to be protected from harm by the government. If people who over consume were allowed to suffer the consequencies for their own ignorance, the problems of over-consumption would largely go away. All these problems point back at government, not at capitalism. Capitalism works just fine. It provides the greatest amount of wealth and security for the greatest number of people. And, in addition to that, works completely independently of the state. The state does not want you to believe that, and does everything it can to cripple capitalism and blame capitalism for it, but it is true.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:29 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
A study of the great depression would establish to a sane, unbiased mind that stimulus spending just does not work. Doing nothing at all in 1929, or later, would have completely prevented the great depression.
Unemployment shot up to 25% under Hoover between 1929 and 1933. As a matter of interest, what is it that you think Hoover did to cause this?
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
I believe you meant to say the difference from the income and expense of firms, didn't you? We have a very good word for income and that word is income.
Alas, accountants have created confusion. They use income with two meanings: revenue and profit. For economists, a firm's income generally is the same thing as its profit. This is consistent with national income accounting, whereby the share of firms in national income is given by their profit, not their revenue.
Oakman wrote:
I was actually trying to define savings as a method of accumulating capital - which, it seemed to me was the definition of profit that was being offered.
It wasn't the definition of profit being offered by me. To quote myself: "That profit may in principle be used either for capital accumulation or for capitalist consumption." If your point is that "workers" may save, thereby accumulate capital and thereby receive a return on that capital, making them "capitalists" in some sense, then I agree.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
It wasn't the definition of profit being offered by me.
It occurred to me that you would respond by saying that and that you had every right to. But we are not having a private conversation and everything that gets said in our round-robin ultimately has an inpact on the conversation. That's not an excuse for misunderstanding you, but 'tis my explanation.
John Carson wrote:
If your point is that "workers" may save, thereby accumulate capital and thereby receive a return on that capital, making them "capitalists" in some sense, then I agree.
Then we, at least, understand each other's point. :thumbsup:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Have a look at it, it is informative
I looked for awhile, but even though I have a very understanding boss, I don't think I should spend as long as that takes at one sitting. I'll look at it more later.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The banks STILL have not taken the hint that they must start doing their job by lending it out.
In all honesty, I wouldn't lend out a lot of money right now either. The banks got into trouble by making stupidly bad loans. Some really respected people have seen their reputations and their careers go down the toilet for giving money to people who were not credit worthy. Now, banks are being damned because they don't want to loan money to people who, because of the problems with the economy, cannot be considered credit worthy. They will "do their job," I believe. If someone can put down 30% on a house, he'll be able to get a mortage from just about any bank - at very favorable rates. If you want to buy a new car, you can still do so if you have a decent credit score, and/or if you have a nice fat down payment.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I'm not sure where to find, or look, for any silver linings.
Me, either. It's easy to identify the problems, with only a little thought. It's much harder to have faith in the tried and true economic theories that propose that doing A and B guarantees C. They say that the mistake generals make over and over again is that set up their defenses to protect themselves against the tactics the enemy used in the last war. (As you probably know, the Maginot Line was supposed to prove an insurmountable obstacle to Germany at the beginning of WWII. They didn't pause for even a day.) I think that I am beginning to detect a similar shortsightedness in those who propose solutions for the troubles. Indeed, a great deal of time is spent arguing about whether the New Deal helped or hurt and that predates the Maginot Line by years!
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
the current system is perhaps irrevocably broken and a new system should be researched
I sometimes fear that I will begin to remind people of fat_boy, with a bee in my bonnet about the devaluing of our currencies, but it appears to me that our modern-day problems are triggered by the ending of the Breton Woods agreement in the late sixties and early 7
I fully agree when you say a sizable downpayment for house purchase is necessary. But my main point in complaining that banks are still not lending (well not lending near enough) is all of those small and medium sized companies of which many, if not the majority, are profitable concerns. If they are unable to get the required loans from banks, this is my concern that these companies will fail. Once these small to medium sized companies have gone, they are gone never to be resurrected. This will cause huge queues at the unemployment offices, perhaps even matching or surpassing those of the Great Depression. And therein lies the threat to capitalism. It could be the death nail. I'll not comment on the "New Deal", due to my insufficient knowledge of it, but I will read up on it. But I fully comprehend those references to the Maginot Line. But you are right where you observe the need to find something that is of intrinsic value. But, what, if anything, is on the horizon that might be the saviour of the financial system. Bretton Woods, I understand, wouldn't work today. Don't you worry about being a carbon copy of Fat_Boy. The immediacy of this financial crisis trumps Fat_Boy's Global Warming rants. Wonder if he, Digital Man, Matthew Faithful, or even CSS will re-appear now that no links to the Soapbox exist elsewhere.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A study of the great depression would establish to a sane, unbiased mind that stimulus spending just does not work. Doing nothing at all in 1929, or later, would have completely prevented the great depression.
Unemployment shot up to 25% under Hoover between 1929 and 1933. As a matter of interest, what is it that you think Hoover did to cause this?
John Carson
There was a completely normal downturn in the economy in 1929. Hoover's attempts to use government to correct the problem was misplaced. Everything he did was wrong. He should have done nothing at all. The markets would have pulled out of the slump all on their own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
There was a completely normal downturn in the economy in 1929. Hoover's attempts to use government to correct the problem was misplaced. Everything he did was wrong. He should have done nothing at all. The markets would have pulled out of the slump all on their own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There was a completely normal downturn in the economy in 1929. Hoover's attempts to use government to correct the problem was misplaced. Everything he did was wrong. He should have done nothing at all. The markets would have pulled out of the slump all on their own.
I see. No specifics. Just religious dogma.
John Carson
-
I fully agree when you say a sizable downpayment for house purchase is necessary. But my main point in complaining that banks are still not lending (well not lending near enough) is all of those small and medium sized companies of which many, if not the majority, are profitable concerns. If they are unable to get the required loans from banks, this is my concern that these companies will fail. Once these small to medium sized companies have gone, they are gone never to be resurrected. This will cause huge queues at the unemployment offices, perhaps even matching or surpassing those of the Great Depression. And therein lies the threat to capitalism. It could be the death nail. I'll not comment on the "New Deal", due to my insufficient knowledge of it, but I will read up on it. But I fully comprehend those references to the Maginot Line. But you are right where you observe the need to find something that is of intrinsic value. But, what, if anything, is on the horizon that might be the saviour of the financial system. Bretton Woods, I understand, wouldn't work today. Don't you worry about being a carbon copy of Fat_Boy. The immediacy of this financial crisis trumps Fat_Boy's Global Warming rants. Wonder if he, Digital Man, Matthew Faithful, or even CSS will re-appear now that no links to the Soapbox exist elsewhere.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If they are unable to get the required loans from banks, this is my concern that these companies will fail.
I'm concerned, too. I'd be concerned if I was a banker - but my fiduciary responsibility would be to my depositers, not to loan-seekers. I could only ask these companies - what collateral do you have?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Bretton Woods, I understand, wouldn't work today.
So I am told - on the other hand it's quite obvious that not having the Betton Woods agreement in force isn't working either.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Wonder if he, Digital Man, Matthew Faithful, or even CSS will re-appear now that no links to the Soapbox exist elsewhere.
My guess is that CSS is too dumb to have a link to this page. And Mathew seemed to have disappeared awhile ago - but Fat-Boy will be back.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There was a completely normal downturn in the economy in 1929. Hoover's attempts to use government to correct the problem was misplaced. Everything he did was wrong. He should have done nothing at all. The markets would have pulled out of the slump all on their own.
I see. No specifics. Just religious dogma.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I see. No specifics. Just religious dogma.
You can google for all the details you like. The simple fact of the matter is that the economy went into depression in 1929 and didn't emerge from it until WWII made the US the only safe industrial power on the planet dispite massive 'stimulus' spending and various other forms of government interventionism. If you look at the history of US recessions the most severe are those that saw the most interventionism by the government. WWII proves that the latent industrial capacity of the US could have been reignited at virtually any point during the '30's if the government had not been diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
I see. No specifics. Just religious dogma.
You can google for all the details you like. The simple fact of the matter is that the economy went into depression in 1929 and didn't emerge from it until WWII made the US the only safe industrial power on the planet dispite massive 'stimulus' spending and various other forms of government interventionism. If you look at the history of US recessions the most severe are those that saw the most interventionism by the government. WWII proves that the latent industrial capacity of the US could have been reignited at virtually any point during the '30's if the government had not been diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You can google for all the details you like.
A dodge.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that the economy went into depression in 1929 and didn't emerge from it until WWII made the US the only safe industrial power on the planet dispite massive 'stimulus' spending and various other forms of government interventionism. If you look at the history of US recessions the most severe are those that saw the most interventionism by the government. WWII proves that the latent industrial capacity of the US could have been reignited at virtually any point during the '30's if the government had not been diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts.
The simple fact is that the economy started to recover when Roosevelt elected and recovery was continuous except for one blip when he started listening to Republicans about balancing the budget. WWII, far from contradicting a Keynesian analysis, completely vindicates it. The economy recovered because of massive deficit-financed government spending on the war. Waging war is the epitome of "diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts". Economically speaking, building planes and ships and bombs and tanks and employing soldiers is only different from building bridges and roads and power grids and employing teachers is that the latter contributes to long term productivity growth much more than the former.
John Carson
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:24 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You can google for all the details you like.
A dodge.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that the economy went into depression in 1929 and didn't emerge from it until WWII made the US the only safe industrial power on the planet dispite massive 'stimulus' spending and various other forms of government interventionism. If you look at the history of US recessions the most severe are those that saw the most interventionism by the government. WWII proves that the latent industrial capacity of the US could have been reignited at virtually any point during the '30's if the government had not been diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts.
The simple fact is that the economy started to recover when Roosevelt elected and recovery was continuous except for one blip when he started listening to Republicans about balancing the budget. WWII, far from contradicting a Keynesian analysis, completely vindicates it. The economy recovered because of massive deficit-financed government spending on the war. Waging war is the epitome of "diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts". Economically speaking, building planes and ships and bombs and tanks and employing soldiers is only different from building bridges and roads and power grids and employing teachers is that the latter contributes to long term productivity growth much more than the former.
John Carson
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:24 PM
John Carson wrote:
WWII, far from contradicting a Keynesian analysis, completely vindicates it.
Do you think that the bailout under Bush was a clear indicator that we (the US) have moved to a Keynesian approach to the economy? A friend of mine who is doing his economics post doc at Yale tends to think we began moving to a Keynesian approch before that when Greenspan started manipulating the rates in 02 (or was that 03?). Not that it really matters I suppose.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:42 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You can google for all the details you like.
A dodge.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that the economy went into depression in 1929 and didn't emerge from it until WWII made the US the only safe industrial power on the planet dispite massive 'stimulus' spending and various other forms of government interventionism. If you look at the history of US recessions the most severe are those that saw the most interventionism by the government. WWII proves that the latent industrial capacity of the US could have been reignited at virtually any point during the '30's if the government had not been diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts.
The simple fact is that the economy started to recover when Roosevelt elected and recovery was continuous except for one blip when he started listening to Republicans about balancing the budget. WWII, far from contradicting a Keynesian analysis, completely vindicates it. The economy recovered because of massive deficit-financed government spending on the war. Waging war is the epitome of "diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts". Economically speaking, building planes and ships and bombs and tanks and employing soldiers is only different from building bridges and roads and power grids and employing teachers is that the latter contributes to long term productivity growth much more than the former.
John Carson
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:24 PM
John Carson wrote:
A dodge.
No, just a refusal to play the game on your terms.
John Carson wrote:
The simple fact is that the economy started to recover when Roosevelt elected and recovery was continuous except for one blip when he started listening to Republicans about balancing the budget.
That too preposterous to even respond to. It was called "The Great Depression" for a reason. The only thing that improved was government control. I don't recall my parents talking about how great the economy was in 1938. My dad worked in the CCC at some point in the mid to late '30's because he could not find normal employment.
John Carson wrote:
WWII, far from contradicting a Keynesian analysis, completely vindicates it. The economy recovered because of massive deficit-financed government spending on the war. Waging war is the epitome of "diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts".
WWII proves precisely what I said it proved. The industrial capacity of the US was largely dormant throughout the '30's because of government diversion of wealth away from private industry. Once it was needed, the switch was flipped and it started right back up. That could have been done at any point during the entire 1930's. Economically, there was no differnce between 1940 and 1933. The weatlh was there, the capacity was there and the resources were there and but for the government's foot on the the throat of capitalism, the full recovery would have been there also. ALl those massive governemnt programs were not needed, they achieved nothing but taking the US one major step towards socialism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
A dodge.
No, just a refusal to play the game on your terms.
John Carson wrote:
The simple fact is that the economy started to recover when Roosevelt elected and recovery was continuous except for one blip when he started listening to Republicans about balancing the budget.
That too preposterous to even respond to. It was called "The Great Depression" for a reason. The only thing that improved was government control. I don't recall my parents talking about how great the economy was in 1938. My dad worked in the CCC at some point in the mid to late '30's because he could not find normal employment.
John Carson wrote:
WWII, far from contradicting a Keynesian analysis, completely vindicates it. The economy recovered because of massive deficit-financed government spending on the war. Waging war is the epitome of "diverting such a hugh proportion of the nation's wealth into non-productive efforts".
WWII proves precisely what I said it proved. The industrial capacity of the US was largely dormant throughout the '30's because of government diversion of wealth away from private industry. Once it was needed, the switch was flipped and it started right back up. That could have been done at any point during the entire 1930's. Economically, there was no differnce between 1940 and 1933. The weatlh was there, the capacity was there and the resources were there and but for the government's foot on the the throat of capitalism, the full recovery would have been there also. ALl those massive governemnt programs were not needed, they achieved nothing but taking the US one major step towards socialism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That too preposterous to even respond to. It was called "The Great Depression" for a reason. The only thing that improved was government control. I don't recall my parents talking about how great the economy was in 1938. My dad worked in the CCC at some point in the mid to late '30's because he could not find normal employment.
That is utterly preposterous, but I'll respond anyway. What you seem unable to get into your thick skull is that the economy was in a diabolical state in 1933 and steadily improved thereafter, except for a blip around 1937 when Roosevelt took steps to balance the budget. If a metaphor helps, think of a seriously injured soldier. He doesn't get better in days. It may take years.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The industrial capacity of the US was largely dormant throughout the '30's because of government diversion of wealth away from private industry.
No, it was dormant because of a lack of private sector demand. Government spending kept much more capacity in use than would otherwise have been the case.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once it was needed, the switch was flipped and it started right back up. That could have been done at any point during the entire 1930's. Economically, there was no differnce between 1940 and 1933.
And what constituted the flipping of the switch? Answer: massive government spending on the war. In the 30s, just as now, ignorami like yourself made it politically impossible to undertake the level of government spending necessary to restore the economy. But since making war is the only form of government spending that Republicans are really enthusiastic about, the outbreak of WWII made it politically possible to undertake the level of spending that would restore the economy to health. And that is just what happened. You are right on one point. Economically there was little difference between 1940 and 1933. What was different was the politics. WWII made your intellectual forebears pull their heads in and let the government get on with fixing things. Have a look at this chart of government spending from 1920 to 1950 and then go and hang your head in shame for talking such nonsense. http://www.usgovern