unemployment up to 9.6%

[sjt18]

Wow, your first paragraph is WAY out there. .

I am honestly not surprised that plain math and reason would be "way out there" according to you judging from your comments and blind devotion to a failed economic theory.

Even Cuba is now coming to realize the folly of central economic planning:

Cuba announces mass layoffs in bid to spur private sector | Reuters

Your last sentence is, well, dubious. I could give you a lot of worldwide data showing "trickle-down" doesn't work, but I think the graph in the quote tells us that exact story. Saves me some work, which is good.

No it doesn't... and you can't give me the data because it does not exist. Nice try at deflection though.

Supply side works. Not as well as a genuine and permanent move away from gov't activism and central planning but it does in fact work to actually stimulate a flagging economy. I know this flies right over the heads of folks who believe as you do... but private investors/enterprises react more quickly and effectively and thus create jobs much better than any and ALL Keynesian policies.

In truth, supply side actions are little more than a gulp of air to a dying engine. JFK, Reagan, and Bush were only able to get some economic spurts. The technology revolution of the 90's and political stalemate helped some. But the train wreck that Keynes will ultimately bring is still coming..

What you so obviously and adamently believe in is doomed to fail and if followed to its end will result in the collapse of the American economy and nation as we've known it. It IS inevitable. Keynesian ideals are behind the programs that have created our run away debt. The prescription for that disease according to you and Obamites is more of the same.

However, what I really want to discuss is this young-old naive thing. I wish I were as young as you think I am.

You "post young and naive". The other guess would be that you have never actually worked in the real economy... maybe a teacher, academic, civil servant type of job.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Why wouldn't I want Fulmer to win championships?

I have to deliver a championship?

An SEC Championship game is all you want, I'm sorry.

I have to deliver the prize?

For the record, I wanted Gary Patterson.

 

[sjt18]

I said they had unemployment rates under 1% post WWII. Your graph showed that. There is more to explain? :dunno:

Thanks for your help though!

I believe most guys say Keynes was dominate from 1950 - 1971 give or take a year. Monetarism was phasing in, and I believe consensus is entrenched ca 1975.

I think it would be better if you research it, and tell us what you think.

Nixon, Ford, and Carter ALL favored clearly Keynesian policies.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

For the record, I hate LBJ.

 

[utgibbs]

No it doesn't... and you can't give me the data because it does not exist. Nice try at deflection though.

SJT, we just pumped a trillion + 800bn into the system to keep it afloat.

The notion of a "Keynesian Nightmare" looks pretty funny right now when you look at two simple graphs which say, wages went up / home ownership went up (and sharply) during those years. I don't doubt there are problems that need to be solved with ANY system.

Now, fast forward to the 1970s to today. Real wages, stagnant. Home ownership, stagnant up until ca 1998 (and we now know the reason for that, hence the sharp decline). The wealth created has been siphoned to restore elite class power. Which we know it has.

 

[sjt18]

No, but the notion government does nothing well (the current status quo) is equally wrong.

.

Gov't does some things well.

Gov't does not nor can it ever distribute wealth justly or to the greatest benefit of the most people. Gov't does not nor can it ever make decisions that are best for a constantly evolving, locally diverse economy. Every attempt will invariably stifle innovation, creativity, flexibility, and therefore wealth creation.

Gov't does some things well... it just does very, very little efficiently or with cost effectiveness.

Let me illustrate and let you try to shoot holes in it:

Company A has a self-supervising workforce of motivated employees whose goal is to consistently provide their coworkers with service and support that will keep all of them employed. They compete in a healthy way and are free within reasonable boundaries to innovate. Innovations are quickly copied, multiplied, and built upon.

Company B has a workforce dominated by an micromanager. The less productive are subsidized by the more productive in such a way that both groups are de-motivated. There is no real need to compete since favor of the manager is more important than performance anyway... which suits a good many of them just fine because they cannot see outside the walls.

Which company succeeds? Which company actually provides more economic security to even those who would just as soon not try?

The only way company B is more successful is if the manager approaches omniscience.

You apparently believe that gov't CAN be that company B manager with people who largely have no real experience in the real economy.

 

[sjt18]

Another quick point. Years ago when I was in college we studied the Soviet Union some. At the time, the collective farms had almost all the capital equipment and about 96% of the tillable land. When the workers went home, they could work their own private gardens that made up about 4% of the tilled land. They had primative tools and often poor soil. Where do you think most of the food came from?

 

[CSpindizzy]

I can tell you the people never saw the food grown on collectives. That is what was shipped across the borders. Farm fresh food in Soviet times came from the small plots right near the house or flats. You found a way to grow your own or you starved waiting in line for the rationed out food the government market provided.

 

[sjt18]

SJT, we just pumped a trillion + 800bn into the system to keep it afloat.

No. We didn't. We pumped 800bn from one compartment to another, increased the list of the ship, and took on even more water and continue to take it on at a much faster rate.

Keynesian policies are the SOURCE of our accummulating debt. That debt WILL sink the ship... and your only answer is to borrow more money.

The notion of a "Keynesian Nightmare" looks pretty funny right now when you look at two simple graphs which say, wages went up / home ownership went up (and sharply) during those years. I don't doubt there are problems that need to be solved with ANY system.

Now, fast forward to the 1970s to today. Real wages, stagnant. Home ownership, stagnant up until ca 1998 (and we now know the reason for that, hence the sharp decline). The wealth created has been siphoned to restore elite class power. Which we know it has.j

You know what is really funny? That you don't see how utterly ridiculous these assertions are. I really don't know what egg head produced those graphs... but think about it. Do you really believe the avg American does not have or cannot afford a higher standard of living (even without borrowing beyond their means) than someone in 1980? 1970? 1960? England? France?

Once again, it is a case of it making libs like you unhappy when you think the "gap" is too large. It matters not to you that these poor souls are living in bigger, better houses... driving better cars... own more "toys"... travel more... eat out more... have a wider range of affordable entertainment and activities...

Those facts are products of both the technology revolution AND the supply side capital policies that fed it... and they utterly destroy your notion that "real wealth" has been in decline. The avg American today is much, much more wealthy than they were in 1980... even after the Bush-Obama-Keynes recession.

And the even bigger joke is that you compare us to France and Britain... They have a bigger share of a smaller (on scale) pie... NO THANKS. I have no problem with a rich person making lots of money giving me and others jobs and producing goods and services that make us all richer.

It might be helpful also if you cite your sources.

Your second graph proves MY point much more than yours anyway. Real wages are a function of inflation... which DIRECTLY links it to national debt.

 

[Weezy]

 

[BigPapaVol]

I said they had unemployment rates under 1% post WWII. Your graph showed that. There is more to explain? :dunno:

Thanks for your help though!

I believe most guys say Keynes was dominate from 1950 - 1971 give or take a year. Monetarism was phasing in, and I believe consensus is entrenched ca 1975.

I think it would be better if you research it, and tell us what you think.

This is crap, period. It's utterly stupid to pretend Keynes philosophical approach had a huge impact on the post WWII growth yet had nothing to do with the failure of ten prewar years. Retarded.

You have avoided every question I've asked on this because you don't know the linkages. All you know is regurgitated tripe and ridiculous time period driven absurdity.

Why in the hell would we depart from the magic of Keynes if it drove all of the properity you've made up? Why? That's idiotic to pretend we departed it when it was killing it. Explain? Nobody can drive a philosophy out in the face of such awesome results. Granted, the results weren't Keynes driven. It just doesn't make any sense. None. Nada. Zilch.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[CSpindizzy]

Erm, 1982 down, 1987 down. My history might be fuzzy but those are the Reagan years, no?

It's interesting you want to roll like this on this discussion given that real wages increased nearly 100% from 1950 - 1970, and they've remained essentially unchanged over the next 40 years. (well, since "recovering" from the Reagan years).

Hmmmmm, is ideology playing a role? Yes, methinks.

Oh so what happened to your Carter defense? Did your ruler start working again? Strange how what you once defended you back off of and then move on to something else. Is reality playing a role? Yes, methinks.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I said they had unemployment rates under 1% post WWII. Your graph showed that. There is more to explain? :dunno:

Thanks for your help though!

I believe most guys say Keynes was dominate from 1950 - 1971 give or take a year. Monetarism was phasing in, and I believe consensus is entrenched ca 1975.

I think it would be better if you research it, and tell us what you think.

You cannot even answer the question. Shocking. So you're telling me a member of the SPD ushers in monetarism in Germany? Unemployment begins going up there before then and while under as you say the Keynesian model.

So just because for a brief period numbers go under 1% you attribute this to Keynesian economics? Then why did they rise shortly after while still under same model? Amazing how even in France under Mitterand unemployment goes up as well. I'm seeing a pattern develop in France and Germany.

 

[utgibbs]

Why wouldn't I want Fulmer to win championships?

I have to deliver a championship?

An SEC Championship game is all you want, I'm sorry.

I have to deliver the prize?

For the record, I wanted Gary Patterson.

Doesn't matter who you wanted. You have to live with the decision you wanted orchestrated under this Administration.

I want to at least compete for championships. I have simply moved a stage gate to make it easier for you to deliver. By your own metric of success we should win the SEC this year. I've simply moved a stage gate lower, knowing you aren't going to deliver the true product.

2007 was a perfect example of how getting to the game always gives you a chance to win the SEC.

 

[utgibbs]

You cannot even answer the question. Shocking. So you're telling me a member of the SPD ushers in monetarism in Germany? Unemployment begins going up there before then and while under as you say the Keynesian model.

So just because for a brief period numbers go under 1% you attribute this to Keynesian economics? Then why did they rise shortly after while still under same model? Amazing how even in France under Mitterand unemployment goes up as well. I'm seeing a pattern develop in France and Germany.

Unemployment is clearly going down, and stays at minute levels for quite some time.

Again, you research it and tell me where you think the breaks occur.

Some additional notes. The models in Europe were all different. France, lots of planning, targeting, modernization. England and Italy, big nationalizations. Germany actually called their Keynesian plan the "social market economy" Actually the SPD was defeated in the Bundestag by one vote (Adenauer actually cast the deciding vote for himself) at the crucial election (was it 1949?) It was tripartite: government, labor, business; the Bertriebsrate.

Germans call the period the Wirtschaftswerder - 14 years of the German Economic Miracle.

It's getting ridiculous arguing with y'all on this, actually. The data is clear and unambiguous. The judgment of history is clear and unambiguous.

Hell, the French call the time Les Trente Glorieuses - the 30 Glorious Years......

 

[BigPapaVol]

Unemployment is clearly going down, and stays at minute levels for quite some time.

Again, you research it and tell me where you think the breaks occur.

Some additional notes. The models in Europe were all different. France, lots of planning, targeting, modernization. England and Italy, big nationalizations. Germany actually called their Keynesian plan the "social market economy" Actually the SPD was defeated in the Bundestag by one vote (Adenauer actually cast the deciding vote for himself) at the crucial election (was it 1949?) It was tripartite: government, labor, business; the Bertriebsrate.

Germans call the period the Wirtschaftswerder - 14 years of the German Economic Miracle.

It's getting ridiculous arguing with y'all on this, actually. The data is clear and unambiguous. The judgment of history is clear and unambiguous.

Hell, the French call the time Les Trente Glorieuses - the 30 Glorious Years......

so, the enormous demand for work and near limitless supply of cheap labor at the time weren't a part of the reformation economics. It was purely Keynesian philosophy? You've been pretending that this was some single element driven rebuilding now for about a week with no economic support whatsoever. Please, please don't bother with political slogans as verification of anything.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It's going down clearly after a post-war period where almost everything was destroyed. Giving credit to Keynesian models is a little intellectually dishonest. And yet you still do not address it going up even under the same model.

Adenauer in '49 does not explain the 70's. Follow the conversation. Unemployment goes up. Same with Mitterand. Same with Schroeder. It's actually getting ridiculous with you. There is a period of good times and you claim it was all Keynesian. But when under Keynesian UE goes up you deflect and start arguing something else. You were busted on Carter and the other two references above and suddenly drop back to '49. If memory serves me correctly, YOU were the one claiming this utopian success during the entire post war period with even giving numbers under 1% UE. When factually shown increases AND under the Keynesian period, you start whimpering about how WE are the ones who are wrong.

 

[droski]

Actually Europe has a higher upward social mobility than the USA. I suppose Europe est plus bon!

(forgive my pigeon French)

PS - I'm almost certain Canada does as well.

you keep stating this and your only evidence is income disparities which is horse****

 

[droski]

Hell, the French call the time Les Trente Glorieuses - the 30 Glorious Years......

i can't believe you are still arguing the french are in better shape than americans. if there is any better example that euro socialism doesn't work it's comparing the french to the US. incomes grew infinitely faster in the US compared to the french over the past 50 years.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Breaking news: U.S. poverty rate jumps to 14.3 percent, the highest rate since 1994

Hope and Change!

 

[CSpindizzy]

 

[utgibbs]

so, the enormous demand for work and near limitless supply of cheap labor at the time weren't a part of the reformation economics. It was purely Keynesian philosophy? You've been pretending that this was some single element driven rebuilding now for about a week with no economic support whatsoever. Please, please don't bother with political slogans as verification of anything.

Cheap labor? It appears real wages were steadily increasing with GDP.

Unlike the last 40 years.

Some single element? No, I said it took many forms.

Germany - social market economy
England - Attlee and the Welfare State; Beveridge Plan
Italy - the National Champions, big nationalizations like ETI
France - "planification" targeted restructuring and modernization of industry; the Monnet Plan
Japan - the MITI

The unifying idea was a full employment economy. The Project Plan was Keynes; the methods of execution depended on country, culture, resources, etc.

Germany calls it the "Wirtschaftswurder."
France calls it "Les Trente Glorieuses"
Harold Macmillan told Britain, "You've never had it so good."

History has cast its judgment. But David Palmer happens.

 

[utgibbs]

View attachment 34222

Thanks for proving my point again! :hi:

PS - let us not forget, the 1970s begin the trend where an extra person (women) from the household goes out into the workforce.

How could I forget that detail? When we consider this, your graph is absolutely tragic. It's a gawdawful condemnation actually.

 

[utgibbs]

i can't believe you are still arguing the french are in better shape than americans. if there is any better example that euro socialism doesn't work it's comparing the french to the US. incomes grew infinitely faster in the US compared to the french over the past 50 years.

Let's see the data!

 

[droski]

I guess you are ignoring the 20% rise in real wages from 1982 to 2000 when monitary policy economics was at it's highest. but hey. everyone is a lot poorer today right?