[Melchizedek]

	Originally Posted by Miryr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Muzicman, how much do you know about economics? The stimulus was needed to halt the recession. Otherwise it would've been much, much worse.

Of course. We should solve a crisis caused by debt and short-term thinking with more debt and short-term thinking.

[Arkeph]

To be fair, Melchizedek, it isn't branded as a cure-all, but as a kind of first-aid for the economy, and it makes as much sense to avoid debt and short-term thinking as it does for a stab victim to refuse surgery, or for a policeman to refuse to use a gun to prevent a criminal from shooting people. Same tool, different (even opposite) implementation.

I'm not saying the stimulus was the right thing to do, but that this (how much good it did) is an issue which is, annoyingly, too complex for a couple of paragraphs of reasoning and conjecture. Empirical data, statistical analysis, and measurement problems all figure into it.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Man, you make me feel sad. I remember the days leading up to the election were filled with really bad drastic events in the economy. Dont get me wrong but up until sep 2008 I think the war was a huge factor in the anger and bush hate. But in that month the govt gave away 700 billion, wall street was in free fall. Banks were failing and it went worldwide. Now lets be honest the US and numerous other nations all passed stimulus packages SO WOULD HAVE A REPUBLICAN ! Obama has honestly tried to do things and make positive changes, I dont agree with all of them myself but you bring out nonsense to create controversy and claim your hand puppet drawing is a picasso. If this is honestly what constitutes a problem with the current president perhaps I have been judging him too harshly of late he might be doing something right after all.

I really don't care whether Obama had good intentions. His actions were dumb. All he needed to do was review a bit of economic history regarding the Great Depression to find that what he did failed last time and caused the Great Depression to go on for over 10 years until the US got involved in WW2.

How is it someone that is so smart is too dumb to look at whether what he wants to do has been tried and failed?

Why not look to history and periods of economic recovery and do what those governments did? (Kennedy, early '60s; Reagan, early '80s)

Oh, but no... we can't do what's worked in the past...

---------- Post added 09-01-2010 at 08:13 AM ----------


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
by budget year, I believe.

Kinda makes you think that Obama is going to be way more expensive than Bush ever was.

[ATCGs]

I'm confused... a cursory search of economic opinion on the new deal and the great depression in general shows that FDR enacted programs of a similar ideology to Obama (spending money to stimulate economy, creating the WPA, FERA, increasing regulation, banking reforms), and that it is generally considered to be the driving force behind recovery. In fact, general levels of employment returned to pre-depression levels by 1937, preceding the soaring levels of employment and production caused by WWII.

I'm not sure who I should listen to... muzic, or economists.

[Sulla]

Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm confused... a cursory search of economic opinion on the new deal and the great depression in general shows that FDR enacted programs of a similar ideology to Obama (spending money to stimulate economy, creating the WPA, FERA, increasing regulation, banking reforms), and that it is generally considered to be the driving force behind recovery. In fact, general levels of employment returned to pre-depression levels by 1937, preceding the soaring levels of employment and production caused by WWII. I'm not sure who I should listen to... muzic, or economists.

This is false. The spending was very different. New Deal programs were substantially different. New Deal had large public works projects. The ideology is only loosely connected. Addtionally, the economy was recoverying before the New Deal programs and went into another recession after them.

The data simply does not support the idea that the New Deal was a positive impact.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm confused... a cursory search of economic opinion on the new deal and the great depression in general shows that FDR enacted programs of a similar ideology to Obama (spending money to stimulate economy, creating the WPA, FERA, increasing regulation, banking reforms), and that it is generally considered to be the driving force behind recovery. In fact, general levels of employment returned to pre-depression levels by 1937, preceding the soaring levels of employment and production caused by WWII. I'm not sure who I should listen to... muzic, or economists.

Keep looking. In 1938, unemployment was back at 20%, and the stock market crashed again. The temporary propping up of the economy fell apart, and continued until the war.

If you want a better history,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Some of the similarities are haunting. Obama is committing the same mistakes as FDR... In spades.

[Tristan]

Economists do NOT agree that FDR's entitlement programs sped recovery from the Great Depression. World War II is pretty much the unanimous candidate for that. The Great Depression did not stop or even ebb with the New Deal; in fact, some programs (such as agricultural adjustment and industrial codes) were so forceful and harmful that they literally starved people and, less visibly, preempted new jobs, stunting the regrowth of the sectors they sought to save.

I should add that public works projects tend to be a wash. They incur an opportunity cost in the private sector-- the value-adding sector-- that will outweigh the public work except in a few circumstances. Killing tons of Japanese and Nazis was a public work project of such immensity and importance, and the private sector at that point was so completely beached, that it worked alright then.

[ATCGs]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Keep looking. In 1938, unemployment was back at 20%, and the stock market crashed again. The temporary propping up of the economy fell apart, and continued until the war. If you want a better history, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Some of the similarities are haunting. Obama is committing the same mistakes as FDR... In spades.

We should definitely depend on the opinion of a life-long free-market anti-government economic activist. Who enjoys the vague use of "liberty" as often as possible. This is the person we should be listening to when he says that government is the problem, because thats a completely balanced, reasoned, non-dogmatic or ideological stance on a historical subject.

Naturally, I've found that opinions on the source of the 1937 recession differ, with one opinion
being yours, and the other being that attacks on government spending caused a repeal and pushback against progressive policies which caused the double-dip.

I find it interesting that after the 1937-38 dip, FDR decided to side with the keynesians, and launched (post 1938) a 5 billion dollar spending program. This coincided with a massive uptick in employment and production prior to involvement in WWII.

I'm sure that while spending programs were obviously responsible for the double-dip recession, the subsequent spending program had absolutely nothing at all to do with the recovery from said recession.

It is quite simple, your opinion.

A recession or depression is due to all progressive policies prior to said event. A recovery is always in spite of said policies.

3. Profit!

[themuzicman]

Thank you for your admission that your claim of "economists" (via "a cursory search of economic opinion") say that the Great Depression ended in 1937 is flatly false, and more the result of your opinion than anything else.

If we study FDR's actions and the results more closely, I think you'll find that the respected economist that you so flippantly dismissed has some good points.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Economists do NOT agree that FDR's entitlement programs sped recovery from the Great Depression. World War II is pretty much the unanimous candidate for that. The Great Depression did not stop or even ebb with the New Deal; in fact, some programs (such as agricultural adjustment and industrial codes) were so forceful and harmful that they literally starved people and, less visibly, preempted new jobs, stunting the regrowth of the sectors they sought to save.

We've
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- while some economists might argue that this specific program or that was a mistake, no credible economist makes the argument that the New Deal didn't speed recovery from the Great Depression. The argument that they make is that the New Deal didn't speed recovery fast enough, compared to other programs in other industrial countries. Even then, to say there's anything like an even debate on the matter is disingenuous - 6% of historians and 27% of economists
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
because of the New Deal. In terms of credibility, the viewpoint has worse polling numbers than creationism.

And even if one made a great leap of logic in assuming that New Deal policies didn't speed recovery fast enough, that's in no way an endorsement of the preferred prescriptive of most of the people making the argument - doing nothing.

We tried that. The stunning success of Hoovernomics was the result. No matter how often you repackage the same failed policies, or lack thereof, they're still the same failures. Throwing mud on how successful the alternatives were doesn't change that fact.

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I should add that public works projects tend to be a wash. They incur an opportunity cost in the private sector-- the value-adding sector-- that will outweigh the public work except in a few circumstances. Killing tons of Japanese and Nazis was a public work project of such immensity and importance, and the private sector at that point was so completely beached, that it worked alright then.

Are you seriously arguing that something like providing power to most of the south - which undoubtedly improved the production capacity of all business, to say nothing of the employment opportunities and quality of life improvements it provided - was "a wash" because it took away the opportunity for the private sector to do it themselves? An opportunity they of course had for the whole of settlement of the U.S. prior and couldn't find the capital or economic incentive to do so, but you think that it might have been possible to find that capital in the heart of the Great Depression? The selective re-imagining of history here is breathtaking.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps the next time around the US will bomb itself, and then use a stimulus to rebuild?

Don't hold your breath. Even Ground Zero isn't rebuilt. (Not that we bombed ourselves, but still...)

[Sulla]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We've To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - while some economists might argue that this specific program or that was a mistake, no credible economist makes the argument that the New Deal didn't speed recovery from the Great Depression. The argument that they make is that the New Deal didn't speed recovery fast enough, compared to other programs in other industrial countries. Even then, to say there's anything like an even debate on the matter is disingenuous - 6% of historians and 27% of economists To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. because of the New Deal. In terms of credibility, the viewpoint has worse polling numbers than creationism.

You're leaving some out- "Almost an identical percent of the two groups (21% and 22%) agreed with the statement "with provisos"(a conditional stipulation), while 74% of those who worked in the history department, and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright."

This split actually makes me uncomfortable. Generally speaking, I feel much more comfortable, considering their historical accuracy, being on the side most economists are not.

	We tried that. The stunning success of Hoovernomics was the result.

The recovery (first one) actually started under Hoover. Although, it was probably in spite of his policies rather than because of him. He was definitely not a "do nothing approach." He signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. He signed into law massive tax increases- I think it actually the biggest tax increase in history. And I don't think it'll be topped by anything Obama's going to do despite all the rhetoric about the incoming biggest tax increases ever. I think the top rate would need to be around... 67.5%ish? At least on pure income tax burden.

I'm pretty sure that Roosevelt actually called him a socialist for spending too much. Oh, the irony.

[Holiman]

I think we have traded one red herring for another. I must say well played sir. I however refuse to be baited once again into another useless argument. The fact is that the majority of respected economists all agreed with the president and the majority of nations such as all the g8 and g20 had stimulus programs as well. So would any republican.

You fail to discuss or even touch on the bush give away of 700 billion that today is not well documented or accounted for and from what I can tell payed off those whom caused the crash to begin with. This however is not a comparison nor are you giving alternative answers to the economic problem nor do you seem to even accept that the US is still in dire straits. Your answer would seem to be do nothing. This ranks up there with asking someone to stand infront of your moving vehicle, if the president did nothing he would look so much worse. If things continue to deteriate he looks bad, if things go well I am sure we will all atribute the success to something or someone else.


Seriously take the duct tape off from around your head you might realize the sky isnt falling...

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why not look to history and periods of economic recovery and do what those governments did? (Kennedy, early '60s; Reagan, early '80s) Oh, but no... we can't do what's worked in the past...

Enlighten us as to what they did to lessen the impact of severe recessions. Was it Reagan's
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as a % of GDP, much larger than Bush's)? What did
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in his two years in office which caused the economy to grow so readily and keep growing well into LBJ's first term?

Kennedy took office in the depths of the fourth major recession since World War II. Business bankruptcies had reached the highest level since the 1930s, farm incomes had decreased 25 percent since 1951, and 5.5 million Americans were looking for work. Kennedy's response was a series of efforts designed to lower taxes, protect the unemployed, increase the minimum wage, and to focus on the business and housing sectors to stimulate the economy. ... The President also proposed new social programs. These included federal aid to education, medical care for the elderly, urban mass transit, a Department of Urban Affairs, and regional development in Appalachia.

(from the link)

[Miryr]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course. We should solve a crisis caused by debt and short-term thinking with more debt and short-term thinking.

The great depression was solved in a similar manner. In other words, its been proven to work before. What promoted the economy in that case was WWII but the idea is still the same.

[SeaCzar]

Dare one suggest that the cost of the Iraqi fiasco is far higher than the stimulus package. Consider that over 4000 Americans paid the ultimate price, and over 30,000 were wounded. Not to mention the 100,000+ Iraqi dead. There was a lot more invested here than just money.

[BobG]

If the entire stimulus package had been aimed at the current recession, I'd feel better about Obama's stimulus package. The overall package was a mix of measures to lessen the current recession (tax cuts and spending on infrastructure), measures that might help us lessen our reliance on oil (spending on energy technology), and health care benefits.

Only the tax cuts and spending on infrastructure would help the immediate problem.

I think you could say the spending for development of energy technology is a good long term investment, even if it might not have been the most pressing issue for 2009 and 2010. It's a question of priorities rather than value. Personally, I felt that was a worthwhile part of the package even if it didn't address immediate problems.

The health care spending was taking advantage of a crisis to push through things he wanted regardless of the economy. A smart move for a President, but not much help for the current recession. And it was much too large a portion of a package advertised to be aimed at the current recession.

I think it's fair to say that the stimulus package could have been a lot cheaper and still had the same effect on the current recession.

On the other hand, I don't buy the idea that fighting a war in Iraq prevented terrorism in the US. The biggest terrorism danger is always terrorists that already live in your country; not terrorists from foreign countries. Better border security would have more of an affect on foreign terrorists than fighting a war in a foreign country.

I don't think the war in Iraq yielded any positive results. In fact, it's made that area of the globe a more unstable place than it was before we invaded.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Enlighten us as to what they did to lessen the impact of severe recessions. Was it Reagan's To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as a % of GDP, much larger than Bush's)? What did To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in his two years in office which caused the economy to grow so readily and keep growing well into LBJ's first term? (from the link)

You know, one thing liberals always omit when talking about the Reagan years is the deal Reagan made with Democrats to cut $2 of spending for every $1 of tax cuts. Democrats never honored this deal, and yet they consistently call it the "Reagan deficit."

What both Kennedy and Reagan did is right in your own quote: They lowered taxes and focused on the business sector.

And the effects of both were long term. Kennedy long into the Johnson term. Reagan effectively through the Clinton term.

[INTJRyan]

1. Set up false dichotomy.
2. Call others out for logical fallacies when commenting on said false dichotomy.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!

Reagan presided over the largest tax increase in American history and gave amnesty to illegals. He would be tarred and feathered by the fascist neo-cons now called the Republican party. And he was a horrible president on social issues, but tax levels should be about where they were during his administration. It is the killer combo of Bush tax cuts (from already all time low levels) and ridiculous spending on war in the sandbox that put us in the position we are now. But the real fact is we have been bankrupt for about 5 years and no one wants to admit it.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by Miryr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The great depression was solved in a similar manner. In other words, its been proven to work before. What promoted the economy in that case was WWII but the idea is still the same.

Not really. You have to assume that all spending is equal to say that it was solved in a similar manner. Total war and wealth redistribution programs are fundamentally different. There were also very significant public works projects. The recent stimulus does not resemble that.

Originally Posted by INTJ

Reagan presided over the largest tax increase in American history and gave amnesty to illegals. He would be tarred and feathered by the fascist neo-cons now called the Republican party. And he was a horrible president on social issues, but tax levels should be about where they were during his administration. It is the killer combo of Bush tax cuts (from already all time low levels) and ridiculous spending on war in the sandbox that put us in the position we are now. But the real fact is we have been bankrupt for about 5 years and no one wants to admit it.

You have to really stretch your definition to come up with "largest tax increase in American history."

[Holiman]

I had not planned to even talk about the original argument since it was such a horrible concept or comparison but as a disabled vet myself I felt it needed to be said.

When all is said and done, the combined cost of caring for veterans, continued Iraqi operations, replenishing and transporting equipment and paying interest on the debt will bring the final tally to well over $2 trillion. Including the economic costs - both to individuals and to the economy as whole - the bill easily tops $3 trillion. This does not include one of the biggest and most tragic costs of all: that we took our eye off the real target in Afghanistan. The Taliban regrouped, and now we are embroiled in another lengthy, bloody and expensive conflict. And this one has no end in sight.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The true cost of the Iraq war should be the single most blatant reminder that President Bush should have been impeached and tried publically for war crimes in and against the US as well as against Iraq. All you want to do is compare effectiveness for dollars spent against results. Well I doubt I will ever find a justification in the results from strengthing Iran's influence in the region. The horrendouse diplomatic fiasco that our war has cost the US with the rest of the world. The fact that we broke our own treaties and laws by torturing people. The billions of dollars that we have wasted or lost in companies with ties to our last administration. We were lied to and robbed and are left with billions of dollars still being spent in Iraq for years to come. Our veterans have come home wounded, VA healthcare costing an already 34 billion plus a year and from estimates we have yet to actually see the cost of the veterans from Iraq. Seriously wherever this idiotic nonsensical discussion of comparing costs is insulting to veterans and you should have had the commen good sense to realize parroting this bullshit into an argument might truly hurt those whom have sacrificed so much.


I apologize if I seem to be rude or angry, I realized this might come off badly. I honestly believe what Ive written but I also respect you enough to say perhaps you just never thought about the other side of the coin. At the very least I hope you can understand how people who have lost, or disagree with the war might take this as a very disrespectful argument.

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What both Kennedy and Reagan did is right in your own quote: They lowered taxes and focused on the business sector.

Then shouldn't you applaud such policies today if that's what you think caused the economic prosperity associated with those presidents? As was mentioned before, much of the stimulus was tax cuts.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Even then, to say there's anything like an even debate on the matter is disingenuous - 6% of historians and 27% of economists To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. because of the New Deal. In terms of credibility, the viewpoint has worse polling numbers than creationism.

Just goes to show how wonderfully independent and inquisitive our academic establishment is. Particularly our colleges' History departments. They have much to be proud of, no doubt. I won't lie, though: I saw my share of the 27% where I was educated, and to an extent I parrot their views. This isn't to say I am unaware that most academics believe Hoover was laissez-faire and FDR's fixes worked. I just don't agree with either of those assessments, because FDR was merely continuing Hoover's proposals by re-branding them as a new governing philosophy. Desperate people will believe anything, so it worked.

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Are you seriously arguing that something like providing power to most of the south - which undoubtedly improved the production capacity of all business, to say nothing of the employment opportunities and quality of life improvements it provided - was "a wash" because it took away the opportunity for the private sector to do it themselves? An opportunity they of course had for the whole of settlement of the U.S. prior and couldn't find the capital or economic incentive to do so, but you think that it might have been possible to find that capital in the heart of the Great Depression? The selective re-imagining of history here is breathtaking.

While you're taking in your breath, just think it through? If stringing power lines across the South- a wild, rural, sparse land that really hadn't even recovered from the civil war- was not economically viable in the twenties, I don't see how it could have suddenly become the hottest thing to do in the thirties, when resources were even more scarce all over. As I had said in the thread you linked, this effort would have required either deficit spending or looting "the other golden geese in the economy." Why would we want to go into debt over something like that? Harvesting and transporting crops is oil-intensive, not power-intensive. Power is indispensable now, maybe, but this was long ago and the benefits of wiring every farmhouse were highly abstract when there wasn't even any money in the cities.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While you're taking in your breath, just think it through? If stringing power lines across the South- a wild, rural, sparse land that really hadn't even recovered from the civil war- was not economically viable in the twenties, I don't see how it could have suddenly become the hottest thing to do in the thirties, when resources were even more scarce all over.

Private investors operate on a different time frame than Governments when evaluating if a project is worth investment capital. Governments have the ability to wait 50+ years just to reach a break even point on large projects. The long wait for a return, combined with high initial investment costs, deters private investors. A project can be immensely profitable over its lifespan but if the owner will die before he sees a profit he's not going to be interested in investing. Governments, on the other hand, have the capital and lifespan to consider truly massive projects.

[Blse]

Depends on the effects of either on aggregate demand.

Whether or not you beleive that the net gain from the stimulus plan or not (as defined by an increase in GDP greater than the amount spent), no one with a sound knowledge of economics disputes that it increased aggregate demand to some extent. Whether it has been as effective as its proponents claimed, or it's long-term benefits outweigh its long-term costs are hotly contested topics. Whether it did lead to an increase in aggregate demand is not.

Ditto for the Iraq war. There is little debate over whether it increased aggregate demand, only over whether the benefits did outweigh the costs or it was ethically justified.

That being said, since both increased aggregate demand, both increased tax revenues. Because each dollar spend increases GDP and tax revenue the net expense is lower than the gross expense. Thus $100 billion spent by the government may only equal a net expense of say, $90 billion after increased in tax revenue caused by increases in aggregate demand are counted.

Thus, to compare these two we need to know about their effect on aggregate demand. There is no reliable data on that.