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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (575121)	7/5/2010 6:05:25 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570702

>> By definition a recession is only ended when spending increases, ie when products are being bought and jobs are being created... Maybe you have an example to the contrary..? If government spending can end a recession, the definition is a poor one that makes no sense whatsoever. >> Did going on a spending spree to build and purchase weapons have anything to do with it??? Perhaps, but had the collective attitude of Americans not changed in the interim as soon as the spending stopped, the recession would have been back. You're too f*cking stupid to discuss this. Go talk to someone else.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (575121)	7/5/2010 9:02:56 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570702

if gov spending would end a recession there would never be any recessions

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (575121)	7/26/2010 2:13:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570702

Did going on a spending spree to build and purchase weapons have anything to do with it??? The money spent on weapons can't be spent on other things. If wars ended recession, than paying people to dig holes and other people to fill them back in would also end recessions. It might, in some circumstances, "end the recession" in the narrow formal statistical terms, but not in the sense of people actually becoming wealthier. During WWII the economic stats where distorted by rationing and price controls. By the end of WWII it was almost 16 years after the crash. The fact that you had growth after that is hardly an indication that the war spending saved the economy. It wouldn't be so even if there where no other specific reasons to point to, esp. since federal government spending had increased so enormously even while the economy was in the depths of the depression. But there are other reasons. First the devaluation in the 30s (some would argue that it caused problems down the line, and it caused some degree of problems right away, but to the extent that the problem is deflation this was a more effective response than a lot of new government spending, and esp. more effective than a lot of new regulations and large tax increases); secondly our exports expanded leading in to our involvement in the war; also some of the restrictions imposed in response to the depression where lifted in the war, and then after it the WWII restrictions (price controls, rationing, etc. were lifted; then you also have the fact that people had paid down debt and built up savings during the years leading to the end of the war, and combined with that you had the removal of rationing allowing more demand for consumer items, and the removal of the focus on the war effort allowing supply to be created to meet that demand. On top of all of that you had the US being in a unique competitive position with the productive capability of many other countries being damaged so heavily by the war. And you simply had a matter of time. If nothing much was done by the government in terms of wars or trying to control the economy, you probably would have had a return to solid economic growth even earlier.