MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The American ExperienceContains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  General  
  Ask Management  
  Member's Place  
  Coffee Breaks  
  Members Recipes  
  Pictures  
    
  Backup Group  
  Links  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : It didn't work then... why will it work now?
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamealaska0867  (Original Message)Sent: 11/28/2008 9:25 AM

The Great Depression of the 1930s was in fact the longest-lasting of all our depressions.

Government policy in the 1930s was another bipartisan disaster. Despite a myth that Herbert Hoover was a "do nothing" president, he was the first President of the United States to step in to try to put the economy back on track.

With the passing years, it has increasingly been recognized that what FDR did was largely a further extension of what Hoover had done. Where Hoover made things worse, FDR made them much worse.

Herbert Hoover did what Barack Obama is proposing to do. Hoover raised taxes on high-income people and put restrictions on international trade, in order to try to save American jobs. It didn't work then and it is not likely to work now. ~ Thomas Sowell  "Jolting" the Economy

Our soon to be president, Obama, has a lengthy website vaguely describing all that he intends for us.  As Mr. Sowell points out, much of it resembles things tried in the past... policies and actions that not only lengthened a recession but made it much, much worse... turning it into The Great Depression.

Why is it that so many people think taxing the bejeezus out of 'wealthy' people and punishing people with tarriffs and other trade barriors is the way to cure all the ills of the world?  Why do normal people, people who would not for a moment tolerate micro-management in the workplace by distant bosses seem to long so lovingly for micro-management by distant politicians?

Free markets and limited government... basically leaving people alone and keeping your hands off their stuff... has resulted in the greatest uplift in the standard of living the world has ever experienced.  Every national government that allows some version of free markets and limits it's own powers experiences the same thing; an increase in the overall standard of living within its borders.  Those that do not tolerate economic or political freedom (freedom from centralized planning)... the people in those nations suffer almost beyond our imagination.

Once upon a time, abject soul grinding poverty was the norm, for goodness sake. It was normal Today, only a couple of generations later, that sort of thing is a novelty... an abnormality... in industrialized nations.  We think people who rent apartments and have only one car and no cellphone are poor.

You know, by the measurements taken by those whose job it is to measure the 'economy'... we're not in a recession.  They're saying our economic output is down by less than 1/2%.  In the words of Keanu Reeves, "Whoa".

0.5% decrease.  Does that sound like a crisis?

When it comes to the Federal government, I'm a cynic.  After all, it is a demonstratable truism that there is no problem the federal government cannot make worse.  One merely need to read any history book about any government, really, to see how true that is.

So, repeating Mr. Sowells question... if Hoovers and FDR's schemes didn't work then... why will they work now?



First  Previous  28-42 of 42  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 28 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameKnightly-Sent: 11/30/2008 5:44 AM
The feds created it by promising to repay any monies lost thus investors became willing to accept more risk and became sloppy in their homework.  Worse, via the community re-investment act, it became illegal for investors to deny loans to risky folks.
 
not exactly.  the feds enabled it. 
 
the CRA mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by the relevant banking regulatory agencies to determine if the institution has met the credit needs of its entire community in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations.[2]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
 
Trade deficit scheme?  What, pray tell, is that?
 
you aware of the trade deficit which keeps on growing.  china is sitting on 2 trillion and japan and a trillion.  some of this trade surplus comes back to the usa to buy things like T-bills.  awhile ago i read a report that dealt with the reluctancy of some members of opec and south korea to continue buying interesting bearing american paper.  the elite were almost in a state of panic over this.

Reply
 Message 29 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamealaska0867Sent: 11/30/2008 6:09 AM
not exactly.  the feds enabled it.
 
It's the same thing.  Abscent federal manipulations, the housing bubble would not have occured.
 
you aware of the trade deficit which keeps on growing.  china is sitting on 2 trillion and japan and a trillion.  some of this trade surplus comes back to the usa to buy things like T-bills.  awhile ago i read a report that dealt with the reluctancy of some members of opec and south korea to continue buying interesting bearing american paper.  the elite were almost in a state of panic over this.
 
And it matters not one little whit.  The federal government does not exist to manipulate us or people in other nations.
 
That's a fact that too damned many people seem to forget.

Reply
 Message 30 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameKnightly-Sent: 11/30/2008 6:35 AM

Reply
 Message 31 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamealaska0867Sent: 11/30/2008 6:42 AM
Knightly, you've been in the company of bad economists and power hungry meglomaniacs far too long.

Reply
 Message 32 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameKnightly-Sent: 11/30/2008 6:46 AM

Reply
 Message 33 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameKnightly-Sent: 11/30/2008 10:03 AM

Reply
 Message 34 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameClearestWilhelmSent: 11/30/2008 11:17 AM
Knightly 
In your Message 16  you do not point out that any expenditure spent on glaziers means that there is less money left over for spending on other suppliers - so the net effect is zero on overall spending.
 
It is also worth pointing out that national statisics of most countries 1913-1926 show growth sticking to trend lines and all the tumult that happened in between had remarkably little long term effect.

Reply
 Message 35 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameKnightly-Sent: 11/30/2008 7:29 PM
any expenditure spent on glaziers means that there is less money left over for spending on other suppliers - so the net effect is zero on overall spending.
 
but what if there is a down turn?  the economy slows.  people start to save money,  that is they don't spend money.  so then it does cause a spike in the economy.  in the north the economy slows down every winter.  the ground is too frozen to dig.  and many find it is too cold to work outside.  say a major snowstorm hits,  taking moterists by surprise.  lots of fender benders means more work for auto repair shops.  they might even hire those who usually do seasonal work.

Reply
 Message 36 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameClearestWilhelmSent: 11/30/2008 10:43 PM
Kightly  #35
but what if there is a down turn?
Try my Message 15  again.

Reply
 Message 37 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamealaska0867Sent: 12/1/2008 12:11 AM
but what if there is a down turn?  the economy slows.  people start to save money,  that is they don't spend money.  so then it does cause a spike in the economy.  in the north the economy slows down every winter.  the ground is too frozen to dig.  and many find it is too cold to work outside.  say a major snowstorm hits,  taking moterists by surprise.  lots of fender benders means more work for auto repair shops.  they might even hire those who usually do seasonal work.
 
Oh, so I should go round smashing out shop windows and banging on peoples cars with a sledge hammer so as to drum up work for glaziers and autobody shops?  That about right?

Reply
 Message 38 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameKnightly-Sent: 12/1/2008 2:39 AM
#37  oh dear.  we aren't talkiing about creating stimulus,  are we?  i am only stating that oppurtunies happen that can act as a stimulus depending on the timing.

Reply
 Message 39 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamealaska0867Sent: 12/1/2008 2:52 AM
Pointless destruction is pointless destruction, in my opinion.  Regardless of whether someone can profit from it, it remains a step backward.  Bombing cities or busting windows... the difference is only in scale and severity.  Wars and breaking windows are not 'stimulous', they are steps backwards... net drains.

Reply
 Message 40 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameKnightly-Sent: 12/1/2008 4:15 AM
Pointless destruction is pointless destruction, in my opinion.
 
of course of course.  then there are hurricanes and tornados.  pointless destruction?  the example of the broken window is flawed.  a better example would be nature events like the ones i mention.  because bad things can happen,  there are insurance companies.  they don't produce anything but provide a service.  and create a demand for products.

Reply
 Message 41 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamealaska0867Sent: 12/1/2008 5:09 AM
Are you suggesting that war and vandalism are the same as natural events like storms and the consequences of foolishness such as building your home in a flood plain or on a beach?

Reply
 Message 42 of 42 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameKnightly-Sent: 12/1/2008 7:24 AM
no,  but they occur often enough.

First  Previous  28-42 of 42  Next  Last 
Return to General