Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (456520)	2/14/2009 1:12:58 AM
From: Taro	Respond to of 1575192

So you are telling us we don't need another major war to get our economy and employment back on track? Taro

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (456520)	2/14/2009 11:03:34 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1575192

Your table has selective years picked. Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 25.6% - the annual average it was higher in early 1933- and dipped as low as 14.5 % in 1937. This was due to deficit financing and other stimulative govt programs It isn't selective years. It was just an every-other-year presentation. In 1937 FDR , egged on by prominent Republicans instituted a balanced budget policy and saw the unemployment rate rise to over 19% by 1938 Total Bullshit. FDR believed a balanced budget was paramount, he believed the Depression was over, and he PROPOSED the budget cuts. The deficit in '36 was $4.3 Billion, and his '37 budget reduced the deficit $2.7B and would have balance the budget in '39. Republicans had NOT ONE THING to do with it. During the time between September 1, 1937 and March 31, 1938, FOUR MILLION jobs were lost. That's right. The "Roosevelt Recession" saw a far greater increase in unemployment rate than anything we're seeing now. That's why it is caused the "Roosevelt Recession". Not because Republicans had a thing to do with it. I would also point out that FDR, unlike modern-day presidents, saw what caused the problem and immediately took steps to undo the damage. he then switched to Govt deficit financing again and unemployment began dropping. The rapid increase in govt. expenditures in prep for war and actually entering the War after Pearl Harbor-12/41- led to rapid decreases in unemployment. This, however, is true -- increasing government spending tamped the Depression back down. The point in the OP was that Michael had made the argument that government spending ended the Depression. I had argued, correctly, that government spending was able to merely mask the unemployment. As soon as the government spending stopped, the depression came back. This fundamental issue you and I agree on. You're confused about whose fault it was, but the point still holds. The bottom line is that WWII, not government spending, ended the Great Depression. Building 300,000 airplanes over a 4 year period. Building 2.4 million trucks, 600,000 jeeps, 90,000 tanks and 6,000 ships. All that stopped the Depression, and huge cost -- essentially, 4x-5x our annual budget. Consider that in terms of TODAY's annual budget. That's what it takes to stop a depression. I'm not arguing for more spending. When FDR did this spending, it was from a balanced budget with no real debt. The so-called stimulus bill is nothing of the sort. It is a wealth redistribution bill. How, you say? Because the printing of a trillion dollars will devalue the wealth of the haves and give the amount of that devaluation to the have-nots. I wouldn't be opposed to it under these circumstances but for the fact that is (a) disguised, and (b) not temporary (as FDR intended). This event is nothing like a depression and doesn't even come close to the numbers of the Roosevelt Recession (remembering that Roosevelt was re-elected during it). This is a minor blip at this point. Perhaps unemployment will grow to 10%, then it starts to become serious (but only half as serious) as the Great Depression.