It ain't "reckless abandon," it's "bold, upfront action"

Stan Shannon

No, the line is that FDR made the depression 'great' not that he caused it. As to the rest, I guess we will have to wait and see. But if you are suggesting the great depression had been resolved prior to WWII, maybe you should talk to people who were actually living in it.

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, April 15, 2009 6:56 AM

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Just a little control, eh? Because governments are so good at exercising just a little control? But tell you what. Maybe we should work on the concept of staying just a little bit pregnant, first - then we can work up to a government that exercising a little control.

It would be a simple matter of actually requiring the US government to adhere to its constitutional mandates.

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.

Oakman

John Carson wrote:

Ramping up the military involves large increases in government production, in addition to increased purchases from the private sector.

Not really. John. It increases the size of the payroll, of course, but that has the effect of increasing the going wage in the private sector due to decreased supply just as demand increases. But the US won WWII on the back of its private industry ramping up, not nationalization by the Government as was done in Germany.

John Carson wrote:

The government also borrowed massively during WWII.

Did something I wrote suggest otherwise? As I remember it, we were running deficits larger than our GDP. But I fail to see what that has to do whether the government was allowing wealth to be created in the private sector or competing with the private sector as it had during the mid '30's.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

I'm not sure that your POTUS was lectured to at that recent gathering

That's what makes horse-racing interesting, n'est-ce pas?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Both gold and silver are limited in abundance but not so Aluminium, what about that? And copper perhaps also has a role to play..

The problem is that they aren't rare enough. Even with the rampant inflation going on right now, the amount of copper you'd need to trade for a loaf of bread is prohibitive. Back when gold was in its heyday, you could carry enough of it to buy 200 loaves of bread in a coin a little larger than a quarter. Unfortunately, and again I am paraphrasing John, no commodity is better able to back paper currency than gold.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

It would be a simple matter of actually requiring the US government to adhere to its constitutional mandates.

Yes, we've seen how well that's worked out. Your sudden faith in the feds is quite touching.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Your sudden faith in the feds is quite touching.

It isn't sudden. The reason I defend the founding principles is because I do have faith in them. They never failed the entire time the were applied. They are not failing now, they are merely being ignored and buried under massive piles of leftist and libertarian bullshit.

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.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

libertarian

You still have never proved that you even understand the word. I'm relatively sure that you attack the political philosophy whenever possible. because you know I self-identify as one.

Stan Shannon wrote:

They are not failing now, they are merely being ignored and buried

Sounds like a fail to me.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

John Carson

Oakman wrote:

Not really. John. It increases the size of the payroll, of course, but that has the effect of increasing the going wage in the private sector due to decreased supply just as demand increases.

And how is that any different from "government in the role of producer" pre-WWII?

Oakman wrote:

But the US won WWII on the back of its private industry ramping up, not nationalization by the Government as was done in Germany.

1. Did Roosevelt have a large program of nationalization pre-WWII? You seemed to be contrasting his pre-WWII and WWII policies. 2. Germany did recover from the Depression, just as the US did, illustrating my point that the scale of government production was essentially irrelevant.

Oakman wrote:

Did something I wrote suggest otherwise?

Yes, this something: "He effectively monopolized the use of capital for awhile".

Oakman wrote:

As I remember it, we were running deficits larger than our GDP.

Less than a third of GDP.

Oakman wrote:

But I fail to see what that has to do whether the government was allowing wealth to be created in the private sector or competing with the private sector as it had during the mid '30's.

Well, a standard way that the government is said to compete with the private sector is by borrowing funds that the private sector might borrow. I don't know in what way you think the government was competing with the private sector. We seem to have ruled out: 1. employing people, 2. borrowing. What did you have in mind?

John Carson

John Carson · modified on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:56 AM

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, the line is that FDR made the depression 'great' not that he caused it.

By reducing unemployment and increasing output?

Stan Shannon wrote:

But if you are suggesting the great depression had been resolved prior to WWII, maybe you should talk to people who were actually living in it.

I said prior to the end of WWII.

John Carson

Stan Shannon

John Carson wrote:

By reducing unemployment and increasing output?

Which part of "great depression" don't you understand? IT was the Great Depression in 1930 and it was the Great Depression in 1939.

John Carson wrote:

I said prior to the end of WWII.

And what precisely was the world like in 1945?

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

Stan Shannon wrote:

Which part of "great depression" don't you understand? IT was the Great Depression in 1930 and it was the Great Depression in 1939.

You are becoming increasingly incoherent. "the line is that FDR made the depression 'great'". Yet it was the Great Depression in 1930, three years before Roosevelt took office.

Stan Shannon wrote:

And what precisely was the world like in 1945?

Fully employed as a result of massive government spending.

John Carson