Person A (original post) - "What I would like to know is if the Great Depression lasted from 1929 until 1942, how in the world does anyone expect the President to solve a Great Recession in 2-4 years? Is that logical to you?President Bush or President Reagan both presided over down economies longer than President Obama has and got 2nd terms. Both had tax increases supported by both parties.Be reasonable people or just admit that you just don't like President Barack Obama!"
Person B - Just from a historical perspective, Reagan's second term came after a significant uptick in the economy that was similar to the 2006 bloated housing market, only for it to burst in 1987 in conjunction with the S & L scandal. Bush inherited those economic problems, in addition to the national defense bills Reagan accrued, which is why he lost his second election. So it is true that, so far, Roosevelt is the only president that has been re-elected during a down economy.
Me - The gov't can't 'fix' the economy. Murray Rothbard's "The Great Depression" goes into the role of gov't interference in the 1920's and how it, and the Central Bank (FED) caused the Great Depression.
Person B - Yeah, Keynsian theory is predicated on the reality that WWII actually cured the Great Depression's lock on the world economic downturn. War literally created the demand for manufacturing, which required the millions of jobs necessary to meet that demand.
Concerning W., recall the economy was recovering from 9/11 by the time he ran for office a second time in '04, and as far as politics are concerned, that's all that matters. Had Obama been required to run last year, when the jobs numbers were significantly higher per month, it would have been a lot easier for his campaign compared to now.
Concerning W., recall the economy was recovering from 9/11 by the time he ran for office a second time in '04, and as far as politics are concerned, that's all that matters. Had Obama been required to run last year, when the jobs numbers were significantly higher per month, it would have been a lot easier for his campaign compared to now.
Me - Very true, and when folks bring up the falsehood about WWII 'solving' the Great Depression, I ask them if morally, half a million deaths are an adequate price for economic stability. This is where the threads usually end.... good pt. about election cycles..
Person B - 60 million, if you talk about across the world.
Person A - Never is war an adequate solution. Never should thousands or millions pay to create good.
The economics of the spurred-on manufacturing caused by WWII is real. That did cause the Great Depression to end. The technical aspects of moving the world's largest economy in downward spin is not simple and cannot be flexed so quickly in a 2-4 year cycle. Patience all.
The economics of the spurred-on manufacturing caused by WWII is real. That did cause the Great Depression to end. The technical aspects of moving the world's largest economy in downward spin is not simple and cannot be flexed so quickly in a 2-4 year cycle. Patience all.
Person B - But, yeah Person A, to your point concerning Obama, neutral economic experts on Wall Street have always predicted the economy would recover somewhere around 2016 or so, meaning that whoever controls the White House in this next presidential cycle could claim victory over the issue, regardless as to whether they could do much or not. Politics...
Person A - Agreed. Precisely my point.
I have been saying since 2008 that the economic crisis is structural and will not and cannot be solved artificially.
Me - OK, if you consider taking millions of working age men out of the American workforce, getting American manufacturing on war footing, borrowing massively against the taxpayer, and killing people. If that's 'curing a depression', then I'm out. Then, the Keynesians & gov't worshipping types predicted disaster as servicemen came back, the gov't budget was slashed, and taxes were lowered. The economy took off. This is the history we don't learn - especially the 'gov't budget slashed' part.
Person A - That is what caused the economic downturn in the early 1950s. Republican President Eisenhower had to increase taxes to get revenues back inline. The slashing of taxes and rapid shrinking of the government caused unintended consequences that needed to be brought back inline with increased taxes by a Republican former military hero President. After that, the economy took off and created the American dream that folks wax nostaligically about all the time now.
Me - I think there's a disconnect with 'shrinking gov't' and 'shrinking gov't budget'. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about (that Obama has allowed to run wild) was getting ramped up and the budget wasn't there for it. Eisenhower had to raise taxes to support that, under the aegis of the Cold War. Yes, the economy took off when JFK lowered taxes. The most productive single year in the US economy, ever, was 1946. The most productive decade in our history was 1879 - 1889, when the gov't was minuscule and we were on a gold standard. Henry Ford paid his workers in the early 1900's $5 a day(1/4 oz gold - do the math) the highest in the world at the time. There was no minimum wage, there were no payroll taxes, no income tax, there were no unions. How is this possible? We made the best products, at the lowest cost - the people were literate and things were really getting going for the 'regular people'. Then it all ended - the FED, Income tax, WWI -- game over man.
-------------------- end ------------
This is a surface level debate, just a voicing of opinions, jousting back and forth, but it serves a purpose for you, the writer to allow yourself to be challenged and take criticism and respond accordingly. Choose your threads carefully, use your time on social media wisely, and practice your craft. Time is the only resource you can never get back, so avoid the blabber about pop and media stars, and be productive.
No comments:
Post a Comment