One other thing I'd add is that while Hoover did little to nothing, he did do one thing in terms of taking Federal action.

Myth. Hoover was as much of an interventionist as FDR, Bush, or Obama. See the article I cited above.

Let me get back to you, don't have time, at work now.

 

 

If not the stimulus what would you suggest. It is an attempt.

Lowering taxes on the highest tax bracket does little to the economy. The thinking is that corporations will pass on the savings to the consumer but that almost never happens.

 

 

 

The last economist that I really paid attention to was a Conservative. He agreed with what I said.

 

Do some research on the Great Depression, I'm not saying you're wrong but you are missing my point.

 

I would scale back the size of the intervention but get the spending into the economy quicker than the stimulus plan does. If you're going to delay 18 months or more anyway, why not leave it out altogether and then look at it again in 18 months?

 

Lowering taxes on the highest tax bracket most certainly does help the economy.

 

As to the corporations, not sure where you get the idea that they never pass along the savings to the consumer. I realize many don't but very often the tax savings are passed along to the economy as increased dividends, price cuts, or increased r & d. Also, as soon as a competitor realizes that they can pick up market share by cutting their own prices due to a tax cut, the others usually have to follow suit.

It doesn't matter if the economist is a conservative or not; he shouldn't let his political views cloud his view of the economy.

 

I appreciate your instructions to "do some research on the Great Depression." I will consider it as I have never done so in the past.

 

 

First of all, I didn't say anything about FDR. The Great Depression was the fault of Herbert Hoover- see article by Murray Rothbard- and simply exacerbated by FDR. The myth that Hoover was a "free-market capitalist" is bologna.

There is a reason why the Great Depression lasted until 1946. Also, I don't believe that the war ended it; if so, why are we in a recession now?

 

Thank you for taking that so well. I meant no disrespect about it, I just think that many, if not most are uniformed about a lot of issues in our past. I don't claim to know everything about it, or even a lot about it either.

 

I would scale back the size of the intervention but get the spending into the economy quicker than the stimulus plan does. If you're going to delay 18 months or more anyway, why not leave it out altogether and then look at it again in 18 months?

 

Lowering taxes on the highest tax bracket most certainly does help the economy.

 

As to the corporations, not sure where you get the idea that they never pass along the savings to the consumer. I realize many don't but very often the tax savings are passed along to the economy as increased dividends, price cuts, or increased r & d. Also, as soon as a competitor realizes that they can pick up market share by cutting their own prices due to a tax cut, the others usually have to follow suit.

 

I will agree that I would love to see a plan hit quickly, 18 months is a long time to wait.

 

Lowering high tax bracket taxes really doesn't help the overall economy as much as the lower tax bracket does. Common sense tells you that the higher tax bracket is more likely to save, where working class pretty much have to spend a good chuck of their (our) incomes just to maintain our life styles. I don't think that's debatable.

 

As for corporate America getting tax breaks, that is really a very old school method that doesn't work as well. I feel that it leads to a greater divide in wealth between Upper and the Middle/working/lower classes and that is all that it does. Not saying that it is always the case, but often it is. Corporate America is one of the worst parts of the way we live.

Thank you for taking that so well. I meant no disrespect about it, I just think that many, if not most are uniformed about a lot of issues in our past. I don't claim to know everything about it, or even a lot about it either.

I won't claim to be an expert either. But I do know that, from reading multiple articles/studies on the Great Depression as well as being (a former economics major) and as an Economics minor, I've done a bit of research. Perhaps I am missing your point- explain it more clearly to me. As I said, "The recession in 1921 was met with little government intervention, and it gave us the Roaring 20's. The recession in 1929 was met by a huge amount of government intervention and it gave us the Great Depression." Either refute this point or tell me what you are getting at.

I won't claim to be an expert either. But I do know that, from reading multiple articles/studies on the Great Depression as well as being (a former economics major) and as an Economics minor, I've done a bit of research. Perhaps I am missing your point- explain it more clearly to me. As I said, "The recession in 1921 was met with little government intervention, and it gave us the Roaring 20's. The recession in 1929 was met by a huge amount of government intervention and it gave us the Great Depression." Either refute this point or tell me what you are getting at.

 

So you saw the light too, huh? My first degree was econ and then I figured out I couldn't eat if I couldn't teach so I went back and came out an accountant.

I won't claim to be an expert either. But I do know that, from reading multiple articles/studies on the Great Depression as well as being (a former economics major) and as an Economics minor, I've done a bit of research. Perhaps I am missing your point- explain it more clearly to me. As I said, "The recession in 1921 was met with little government intervention, and it gave us the Roaring 20's. The recession in 1929 was met by a huge amount of government intervention and it gave us the Great Depression." Either refute this point or tell me what you are getting at.

 

I wouldn't say Government intervention caused it or prolongued it. What worked was when FDR brought new hope to people and got them to go back to the banks and the stock Market. Policies and new organizations like the FDIC, gave people confidence that it was safe again to be in the economy.

 

Actually a lack of government intervention caused the Great Depression. Like allowing us to produce at rates faster than we could consume, allowing people to take out loans they couldn't pay back, etc, and when the stock market started to drop people paniced and made everything worse for everyone. If governments would step in during the times when we are running to heavy in the economy, we would be a little better off.

 

My point is that you have to do something along the lines of lowering taxes and or increase government spending to end a recession. It's the quickest and fastest way.

I wouldn't say Government intervention caused it or prolongued it. What worked was when FDR brought new hope to people and got them to go back to the banks and the stock Market. Policies and new organizations like the FDIC, gave people confidence that it was safe again to be in the economy.

 

Actually a lack of government intervention caused the Great Depression. Like allowing us to produce at rates faster than we could consume, allowing people to take out loans they couldn't pay back, etc, and when the stock market started to drop people paniced and made everything worse for everyone. If governments would step in during the times when we are running to heavy in the economy, we would be a little better off.

 

My point is that you have to do something along the lines of lowering taxes and or increase government spending to end a recession. It's the quickest and fastest way.

1. Perhaps I'll give you that FDR's ability to re-insure hope was crucial, because consumer confidence is a big part of the market. I can't say for sure because I wasn't there, and the generally used index for measuring consumer confidence (produced by the UNiversity of Michigan) was not around then. But either way, that is not a result of his and Hoover's policies.

 

2. FDIC was a good program, but how about a program such as the NIRA? Remember, the one in which the President was authorized to allow monopolies and cartels in order to keep prices and wages high (therefore increasing unemployment, because if a firm is paying one worker too highly, that just means another one doesn't have a job...)? I've seen estimates that the NIRA alone accounted for 60% of the weak recovery of the economy (not recovering fully till ~1946).

 

3. I'll disagree that a "lack of government intervention" caused it because the government did not step in to slow down the exponential growth. Personally, I believe that the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, has led to the "boom-bust" cycle that we have. By manipulating interest rates (artificially lowering them in order to keep unemployment low) they cause the economy to artificially continue to grow until eventually it crashes. And this, my friend, is too much intervention, as opposed to not enough. And when too much intervention causes a problem, what do the D's and R's on Capitol Hill propose? More government intervention!

 

Also, as for "taking out loans they couldn't afford", the government has no right to tell me what to do with my money. If I want to take out a $3 million loan even though I know that I can't pay it back, then I should be allowed. However, when I fail, the bank who loaned it to me and I deserve to bear the consequences. (I will agree that some government intervention is needed in the regulation of the securities market, if we ever have one again :lol:)

 

4. Your point that "lowering taxes or increasing government spending" are the only ways to get out of a recession is seen only when you look at it through a purely Keynesian viewpoint. Many economists, and even yours truly, would say that recessions and expansions happen no matter what, with government only affecting the degree to which they happen. And even if you argue that "lowering taxes or increasing government spending" is the fastest way out, I'll contend that artificially "fixing" the economy is only going to worsen the boom-bust cycle that we have been seeing in this country.

1. Perhaps I'll give you that FDR's ability to re-insure hope was crucial, because consumer confidence is a big part of the market. I can't say for sure because I wasn't there, and the generally used index for measuring consumer confidence (produced by the UNiversity of Michigan) was not around then. But either way, that is not a result of his and Hoover's policies.

 

2. FDIC was a good program, but how about a program such as the NIRA? Remember, the one in which the President was authorized to allow monopolies and cartels in order to keep prices and wages high (therefore increasing unemployment, because if a firm is paying one worker too highly, that just means another one doesn't have a job...)? I've seen estimates that the NIRA alone accounted for 60% of the weak recovery of the economy (not recovering fully till ~1946).

 

3. I'll disagree that a "lack of government intervention" caused it because the government did not step in to slow down the exponential growth. Personally, I believe that the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, has led to the "boom-bust" cycle that we have. By manipulating interest rates (artificially lowering them in order to keep unemployment low) they cause the economy to artificially continue to grow until eventually it crashes. And this, my friend, is too much intervention, as opposed to not enough. And when too much intervention causes a problem, what do the D's and R's on Capitol Hill propose? More government intervention!

 

Also, as for "taking out loans they couldn't afford", the government has no right to tell me what to do with my money. If I want to take out a $3 million loan even though I know that I can't pay it back, then I should be allowed. However, when I fail, the bank who loaned it to me and I deserve to bear the consequences. (I will agree that some government intervention is needed in the regulation of the securities market, if we ever have one again :lol:)

 

4. Your point that "lowering taxes or increasing government spending" are the only ways to get out of a recession is seen only when you look at it through a purely Keynesian viewpoint. Many economists, and even yours truly, would say that recessions and expansions happen no matter what, with government only affecting the degree to which they happen. And even if you argue that "lowering taxes or increasing government spending" is the fastest way out, I'll contend that artificially "fixing" the economy is only going to worsen the boom-bust cycle that we have been seeing in this country.

 

We will just continue to disagree. I really don't care either way. You seem to have legit reasons to bash Obama, but alot of people don't and that is what this thread is about.

So you saw the light too, huh? My first degree was econ and then I figured out I couldn't eat if I couldn't teach so I went back and came out an accountant.

 

:lol: Raise your hand if you did this....:ylsuper:

We will just continue to disagree. I really don't care either way. You seem to have legit reasons to bash Obama, but alot of people don't and that is what this thread is about.

I've never bashed our President, neither the former nor this one. I disagree with the policies of both vehemently.

I've never bashed our President, neither the former nor this one. I disagree with the policies of both vehemently.

 

Well that is your right, and it's okay. This is an Obama bashing thread though.

Yes, yes it is.