What is your position on gov't....??????

What is your view????

  • Total voters
    0
#52
#52
bam15 said:
These theories have been proven efficient and that is evident by FDR's solution to the Great Depression and Hoover's Laissez-Faire economic policies that Republicans subscribe to today.
Click to expand...

sweet jesus. FDR? you mean the man who is responsible for creating hte programs that are currently 40% of the US budget?
 
#55
#55
The New Deal was busy work to give the illusion that government was the answer to everyone's problems. It was simply a means to chain the American people to the government under the guise of "social programs." To say that it did anything except prolong the depression by taking incentive away from it citizens to actually produce real goods and services is folly. Look at how much we're paying for the New Deal today, and tell me its helping and not hurting us.
 
#57
#57
droski said:
there is zero evidence to support this thesis.
Click to expand...

I agree to the extent that FDR didn't go far enough, he was cautious of Keynesian policies and didn't fully implement them, but did decelerate the damn.

depression_gdp.png


Real GDP (in logs) from 1929 to 1941

Notice the Net stimulus of around 3 percent of GDP this is not much when you’ve got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have followed JMK's policies more closely if Keynesian economics in it's entirety had existed — The General Theory wasn’t published until 1936. You can also notice that in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the “responsible” thing and cut back — and that’s what led to the bad year in 1938, which in some perverted sense Anti-FDR individuals seem to define as the New Deal.

Those New Deal institutions that you criticize remain the bedrock of our nation’s economic stability. You can only imagine how much worse the financial crisis would be if the New Deal hadn’t insured most bank deposits. Imagine how insecure senior citizens would feel right now if Republicans had managed to dismantle Social Security.
 
#58
#58
bam15 said:
Those New Deal institutions that you criticize remain the bedrock of our nation’s economic stability.
Click to expand...

yes because heaven forbid we expect people to save for their own retirement and not milk the poorest people in the country, the young.
 
#59
#59
If Keynesian economics is so wonderful, why is Detroit such a cesspool? Or any large city that has historically been run by democrats (the primary devotees of Keynesian philosophy).
 
#61
#61
bam15 said:
I agree to the extent that FDR didn't go far enough, he was cautious of Keynesian policies and didn't fully implement them, but did decelerate the damn.

depression_gdp.png


Real GDP (in logs) from 1929 to 1941

Notice the Net stimulus of around 3 percent of GDP this is not much when you’ve got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have followed JMK's policies more closely if Keynesian economics in it's entirety had existed — The General Theory wasn’t published until 1936. You can also notice that in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the “responsible” thing and cut back — and that’s what led to the bad year in 1938, which in some perverted sense Anti-FDR individuals seem to define as the New Deal.

Those New Deal institutions that you criticize remain the bedrock of our nation’s economic stability. You can only imagine how much worse the financial crisis would be if the New Deal hadn’t insured most bank deposits. Imagine how insecure senior citizens would feel right now if Republicans had managed to dismantle Social Security.
Click to expand...

Wow.......:sick:

I have never met any one worse than TennNC till you showed up.

You honestly believe this garbage........

:eek:
 
#62
#62
lumberjack4 said:
The New Deal was busy work to give the illusion that government was the answer to everyone's problems. It was simply a means to chain the American people to the government under the guise of "social programs." To say that it did anything except prolong the depression by taking incentive away from it citizens to actually produce real goods and services is folly. Look at how much we're paying for the New Deal today, and tell me its helping and not hurting us.
Click to expand...

He/she actually said it is the bedrock of our economy......

:eek:hmy:
 
#63
#63
MG1968 said:
If Keynesian economics is so wonderful, why is Detroit such a cesspool? Or any large city that has historically been run by democrats (the primary devotees of Keynesian philosophy).
Click to expand...

and why has europe's unemployment rate being higher and their gdp growth rate been far lower than the united states for the past 30 years.
 
#65
#65
bam15 said:
Sorry, perhaps I mislead you with the way I attempted to get my point across. I was talking about social intervention rather then economic intervention, and how Democrats favor economic intervention over social and Republican vice versa. Keynes talked about heavy government involvement in terms of crisis [Recession, Depression] so you can see a direct correlation between President Obama's policies and Keynes theories. These theories have been proven efficient and that is evident by FDR's solution to the Great Depression and Hoover's Laissez-Faire economic policies that Republicans subscribe to today.
Click to expand...

Correct, Keynes advocated government intervention by way of government spending and tax cuts as a method to stimulate economic growth in recessed or depressed economies. I, for one, do not disagree with the notion that this type of involvement can help curb the cyclical downturns in a nation's economy. However, to use Keynesian economic theory as a basis for an expansive government in all other times (i.e., times of economic health and prosperity) is disingenuous at best. Although somewhat radical at the time, Keynes remained a subscriber to many tenets of free-market economics. Specifically, Keynes repeatedly acknowledged the negative impact on the economy of taxes (i.e., that taxes create a deadweight loss – harming society as a whole) and only advocated large government spending in times of economic need (he acknowledged that government spending does not always create the most utility for its citizens – and thus should be tempered in times of health). Those who misunderstand Keynes' teachings have expanded them well beyond what his teachings originally suggested. I want to make clear that the latter part of my argument is not directed at your assertion that Obama's policies have not comported to Keynesian economic thought. Rather, my point is that Keynes should not be used as the holy grail of big government - his teachings were far from that.
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
throwing money at unemployement works to some degree obviously. the question is if it is the most useful use of this money? and history has shown us that the private sector and the consumer uses stimilus money much more efficiently than the gov't. the other problem with teh gov't using the money is, just like the great depression, you grow a sense of entitlement into the people who are getting the money. i'm waiting for a year or two from now for the democrats to argue the stimilus needs to be extended the "keep the jobs" that it created in the first place. and you know they will talk about all these poor americans who are going to be unemployed and starving. this is virtually the same argument that turned social security into a perpetuary program when in reality it was only supposed to be temporary.

you know the jobs that were supposed to be temporary in the first place. in the gov't there is no such thing as temporary spending.
 
#67
#67
paul1454 said:
Correct, Keynes advocated government intervention by way of government spending and tax cuts as a method to stimulate economic growth in recessed or depressed economies. I, for one, do not disagree with the notion that this type of involvment can help curb the cyclical downturns in a nation's economy. However, to use Keynesian economic theory as a basis for an expansive government in all other times (i.e., times of economic health and prosperity) is disingenuous at best. Although somewhat radical at the time, Keynes still was a subscriber to the basic tenets of free-market economics. Keynes repeatedly acknowledged the impact on the economy of taxes (i.e., the deadweight loss to society) and only advocated large government spending in times of economic need. Those who misunderstand Keynes' teachings have expanded them beyond what his teachings suggested. Now please don't think I directed the latter part of my argument at your assertion that Obama's policies have not comported to Keynesian economic thought. Rather, my point is that Keynes should not be used as the holy grail of big government - his teachings were far from that.
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:
 
#68
#68
OrangeEmpire said:
Wow.......:sick:

I have never met any one worse than TennNC till you showed up.

You honestly believe this garbage........

:eek:
Click to expand...

Don't know who TennNC is, and I haven't paid much attention to the politics forum. Yes I honestly believe to what you define as Garbage, while I think Laisezz-Faire/Hayek/Friedman economics is Garbage. The shock is not surprising however, since most people on this board live in Tennessee and that is Republican country after all.
 
#69
#69
droski said:
throwing money at unemployement works to some degree obviously. the question is if it is the most useful use of this money? and history has shown us that the private sector and the consumer uses stimilus money much more efficiently than the gov't. the other problem with teh gov't using the money is, just like the great depression, you grow a sense of entitlement into the people who are getting the money. i'm waiting for a year or two from now for the democrats to argue the stimilus needs to be extended the "keep the jobs" that it created in the first place. and you know they will talk about all these poor americans who are going to be unemployed and starving. this is virtually the same argument that turned social security into a perpetuary program when in reality it was only supposed to be temporary.

you know the jobs that were supposed to be temporary in the first place. in the gov't there is no such thing as temporary spending.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Goverment spending programs can act as a spark to the economy in the short-term, but lose their stimulating effects if enacted over longer periods of time.
 
#70
#70
bam15 said:
Don't know who TennNC is, and I haven't paid much attention to the politics forum. Yes I honestly believe to what you define as Garbage, while I think Laisezz-Faire/Hayek/Friedman economics is Garbage. The shock is not surprising however, since most people on this board live in Tennessee and that is Republican country after all.
Click to expand...

Don't live in Tennessee... check....

I hate republicans more than you do.... check....

Any thing else about the garbage/marginalization you spew?

:thumbsup:
 
#71
#71
paul1454 said:
Exactly. Goverment spending programs can act as a spark to the economy in the short-term, but lose their stimulating effects if enacted over longer periods of time.
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:

For what it is worth, you have the makings of a reasonable poster on this forum. People like you are few and far between.

:)
 
#72
#72
droski said:
throwing money at unemployement works to some degree obviously. the question is if it is the most useful use of this money? and history has shown us that the private sector and the consumer uses stimilus money much more efficiently than the gov't. the other problem with teh gov't using the money is, just like the great depression, you grow a sense of entitlement into the people who are getting the money. i'm waiting for a year or two from now for the democrats to argue the stimilus needs to be extended the "keep the jobs" that it created in the first place. and you know they will talk about all these poor americans who are going to be unemployed and starving. this is virtually the same argument that turned social security into a perpetuary program when in reality it was only supposed to be temporary.

you know the jobs that were supposed to be temporary in the first place. in the gov't there is no such thing as temporary spending.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely correct, government spending snowballs over time, the people who are heavily dependent on it come to believe it is their right to receive this help and soon it becomes a permanent benefit. The cycle goes on and on until those that produce can no longer carry the load for those that don't.
 
#73
#73
paul1454 said:
Correct, Keynes advocated government intervention by way of government spending and tax cuts as a method to stimulate economic growth in recessed or depressed economies. I, for one, do not disagree with the notion that this type of involvment can help curb the cyclical downturns in a nation's economy. However, to use Keynesian economic theory as a basis for an expansive government in all other times (i.e., times of economic health and prosperity) is disingenuous at best. Although somewhat radical at the time, Keynes still was a subscriber to the basic tenets of free-market economics. Keynes repeatedly acknowledged the impact on the economy of taxes (i.e., the deadweight loss to society) and only advocated large government spending in times of economic need. Those who misunderstand Keynes' teachings have expanded them beyond what his teachings suggested. Now please don't think I directed the latter part of my argument at your assertion that Obama's policies have not comported to Keynesian economic thought. Rather, my point is that Keynes should not be used as the holy grail of big government - his teachings were far from that.
Click to expand...

Not arguing with this, just the fact that most economists and my self follow Keynes theories, which as you said revolve around Recession/Depression and is essentially why we must spend so much to get out of the predicament that we are currently in. The same scenario applied to the Great Depression. To Keynes, the idea of saving was a disaster waiting to happen. Some wanted to balance the budget during a recession, to Keynes, this would exacerbate the underlying problem: following either policy would raise saving and thus lower the demand for both products and labor. For example, Herbert Hoover's June 1932 tax increase made the Depression worse by attempting to curtail the deficit. This is the reason why I don't understand people complaining about the deficit and debt during a recession, it is simple economics.
 
Last edited:
#74
#74
OrangeEmpire said:
Don't live in Tennessee... check....

I hate republicans more than you do.... check....

Any thing else about the garbage/marginalization you spew?

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

So I'm assuming that your a Libertarian Ron Paul fan that despises the Fed? Or am I wrong again? Do you follow the Austrian School of Economics?

:good!:
 
#75
#75
KB5252 said:
This is absolutely correct, government spending snowballs over time, the people who are heavily dependent on it come to believe it is their right to receive this help and soon it becomes a permanent benefit. The cycle goes on and on until those that produce can no longer carry the load for those that don't.
Click to expand...

This is the legacy of FDR and LBJ.

Although I have to note that I do admire FDR's leadership during World War II. He had no desire to run for president again but felt he had to for the people. No democrat before or after FDR would answer this call on their death bed.

LBJ is simply a sack of dog crap.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top