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

[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]

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