Obama is to Bush as FDR was to Hoover?

[Accountable]

I believe the money spent in previous wars was spread out around the economy, not focused on make your buddy contractors rich. Look at WWII, tons of people working in factories. Not today.

Huh??
I wrote "The gov't was spending like crazy before the war [meaning WWII]. Why didn't it work then?" This was in response to your post explaining how WWII brought about Keynsianesque spending and so brought about an end to the depression. You wrote this as if the gov't wasn't spending anything prior to that. They were in fact spending buckets of money on all types of big gov't programs for nearly 10 years before we entered the war.

 

[Minor Axis]

Huh??
I wrote "The gov't was spending like crazy before the war [meaning WWII]. Why didn't it work then?" This was in response to your post explaining how WWII brought about Keynsianesque spending and so brought about an end to the depression. You wrote this as if the gov't wasn't spending anything prior to that. They were in fact spending buckets of money on all types of big gov't programs for nearly 10 years before we entered the war.

Government spending leading up to war and the war itself was what snapped the country out of the Great Depression according to this article. It boils down to which history you want to believe.

 

[Accountable]

Government spending leading up to war and the war itself was what snapped the country out of the Great Depression according to this article. It boils down to which history you want to believe.

Sorry, I thought that "In 1931, the Great Depression was not corrected until the country geared up for war, in other words government spending, a Keynesian stimulus solved the problem, not monetary policy or propping up banks" implied that there wasn't any Keynesian-type attempt to solve the depression, and that only the Keynesian spending directly related to the war "snapped" the country out.

I guess the previous depression was just a fluke then, huh?

 

[Johnfromokc]

Huh??
I wrote "The gov't was spending like crazy before the war [meaning WWII]. Why didn't it work then?" This was in response to your post explaining how WWII brought about Keynsianesque spending and so brought about an end to the depression. You wrote this as if the gov't wasn't spending anything prior to that. They were in fact spending buckets of money on all types of big gov't programs for nearly 10 years before we entered the war.

Government spending was indeed high before the war. What were the alternatives?

Some random ponderings:

Would it have been better to let millions of Americans starve during the Great Depression? Unemployment stood at 25% at its peak. We're at 15% now - wonder what it would be if we could actually get a head count of the unemployed and UNDER-employed?

Wages were at slave levels prior to the enactment of laws that empowered labor unions. Now, unions have essentially been castrated and wages are rapidly decreasing again.

During the Great Depression, government spending went toward programs that employed rank and file Americans who needed the money from that work to meet basic needs like having a shelter from the weather and not starving to death.

Coming out of the Great Depression, banks and Wall Street were strongly regulated and 40 years of prosperity ensued. Then it was decided deregulation was the best policy and along came the great recession of 2008. Hmmmm....didn't see that coming did we?

During this great recession, the bailout went to the big banks so that they could meet their multi billion $$$ contractural bonus promises while millions of rank and file Americans lost their jobs and had their homes forclosed on. Government learned from the first Great Depression that it is a mistake to give "entitlements" to the working class when times get tough - so they used the Trickle Down method of giving entitlements to the rich, who afterall, know how to better manage their money than the toiling masses. Ahhhh...Capitalism works afterall!

 

[Accountable]

Government spending was indeed high before the war. What were the alternatives?

I covered that already.
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...as-to-Hoover&p=2064862&viewfull=1#post2064862

I know it goes against the paradigm, so most will just reject it out-of-hand without even checking it out, but we had a depression and recovered from it without Uncle Sam stepping in. They let capitalism work, and it did. Recovery started in 18 months rather than 13 years.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I covered that already.
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...as-to-Hoover&p=2064862&viewfull=1#post2064862

I know it goes against the paradigm, so most will just reject it out-of-hand without even checking it out, but we had a depression and recovered from it without Uncle Sam stepping in. They let capitalism work, and it did. Recovery started in 18 months rather than 13 years.

So you would have allowed millions to starve in the mean time?

 

[Accountable]

So you would have allowed millions to starve in the mean time?

I don't believe millions would have starved. Millions didn't starve the first time. The starvation didn't start until well after government intervention started.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I don't believe millions would have starved. Millions didn't starve the first time. The starvation didn't start until well after government intervention started.

And you have a backward looking crystal ball that told you this? My parents lived through the GD in the rural south. My father was a WW2 vet. Many of my relatives survived as a result of the work programs.

Careful what you read in revisionist writings of history.

 

[Minor Axis]

Sorry, I thought that "In 1931, the Great Depression was not corrected until the country geared up for war, in other words government spending, a Keynesian stimulus solved the problem, not monetary policy or propping up banks" implied that there wasn't any Keynesian-type attempt to solve the depression, and that only the Keynesian spending directly related to the war "snapped" the country out.

I guess the previous depression was just a fluke then, huh?

How did you reach that conclusion? Monetary policy = controlling the interest rate. Propping up banks= giving a specific part of the private sector a bailout. The article differentiates between this and public sector spending. If your interested, which I don't think you are, read the article.

 

[Accountable]

And you have a backward looking crystal ball that told you this? My parents lived through the GD in the rural south. My father was a WW2 vet. Many of my relatives survived as a result of the work programs.

Careful what you read in revisionist writings of history.

Revisionist? You asked a hypothetical question.
It's simple historical fact that the Depression of 1920 under President Harding was tough but short with a strong recovery, with no government intervention, and the "Great" depression languished for years while government interventionists tried to "fix" it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Holy gravedig batman. I saw the title of the thread on the front page and thought, "hey, I posted a thread about that like a year and a half ago". So I went to look for it and realized that it was the same thread.

Don't you feel honored I chose your thread to revive?

Coming out of the Great Depression, banks and Wall Street were strongly regulated and 40 years of prosperity ensued. Then it was decided deregulation was the best policy and along came the great recession of 2008. Hmmmm....didn't see that coming did we?

And after that conservative forces have worked for 70 years to repeal those constraints. The icing on the cake is that it only took 10 years after the repeal of the depression era Glass Steagall Act for a banking implosion. How much proof does anyone need Accountable? What's your alternate theory?

 

[Johnfromokc]

Revisionist? You asked a hypothetical question.
It's simple historical fact that the Depression of 1920 under President Harding was tough but short with a strong recovery, with no government intervention, and the "Great" depression languished for years while government interventionists tried to "fix" it.

So do you think you can realistically compare one resession with any other as if they were all the same? That's certainly the right wing version. I subscribed to that explanation at one time myself until I realized there were three sides to the story of the GD - The right wing side; The left wing side; and reality. There are truths imagined by the left and the right, but neither's side is 100% accurate.

The fact is that few living today were actually there. My parents and their siblings who lived through it have all passed away. One thing all of them agreed upon was that the work programs were a great help to the working class who would have been unemployed with little hope otherwise.

Many excellent programs like Social Security came from that era - I'm telling you right now that the poverty level of the elderly then was nothing like it is today. Elderly with no family or with family with little means lived from meal to meal and days often passed between meals.

Wages and working conditions were massively improved. The weekends off and 8 hour work days and overtime pay we take for granted did not exist for most workers prior to FDR. I don't know about you, but I enjoy my weekends off, and even though I'm salaried today, I built a large part of my nest egg on overtime pay provided for in the FLSA of 1938. I worked many 7 day weeks and 12-16 hour days in the early years, and I am very thankful for overtime pay.

Labor is the capital of the working class, and for some reason, the right wing in the United States is in a constant state of seeking to fuck over the working classes in favor of the monied classes. How working class people like carpenters, plumbers, teachers etc could support their own demise by embracing right wing policy makes absolutely no sense to me.

The blue bloods and industrial class wealthy barons despised FDR because in their words he "betrayed his class" and sought to help the working class improve their lives. We need another FDR today. Obama is damned sure no FDR - he is Republican lite. I laugh my ass off when the uninformed and ignorant call him a socialist as they sell their economic souls to looters in the top 1%.

I don't know about you, but I'm suspicious of any politician or party or political philosophy that suggests I should sacrifice the economic well being of my family so that the monied classes can pay less tax and hoard even more money while they pay the working class less and less.

 

[Accountable]

How did you reach that conclusion?

Because you won't comment on it's faster recovery without Keynesian spending, I have to assume that you think it's insignificant - a fluke.

Monetary policy = controlling the interest rate. Propping up banks= giving a specific part of the private sector a bailout. The article differentiates between this and public sector spending. If your interested, which I don't think you are, read the article.

Reading & re-reading it now, but my beloved beckons. I'm getting in trouble for spending so much time online.

I'll reply later.

 

[Minor Axis]

Reading & re-reading it now, but my beloved beckons. I'm getting in trouble for spending so much time online.

I'll reply later.

LOL, a common ailment we share.

 

[Accountable]

How did you reach that conclusion? Monetary policy = controlling the interest rate. Propping up banks= giving a specific part of the private sector a bailout. The article differentiates between this and public sector spending. If your interested, which I don't think you are, read the article.

I read the article several times. You don't seem to be getting what I'm talking about. Apparently you think I'm talking about 1931, the Great Depression, comparing it to 2008. I'm comparing what was done to drag out the 1931 depression (making it The Great) and is being done today, to the inaction of the federal gov't during the depression of 1920 which resulted in a short, painful depression followed by a strong recovery.

~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the recommendations in the article, It is not the job of the federal gov't to pick winners and losers. Yes they do it all the time, but that doesn't mean it's their job. So to try to manipulate the market to squelch the current economy and "create a new one" based on what a bunch of Washington politicians (bought and paid for by big corp., don't forget) figure would be best for the country, is ludicrous. It's just asking for trouble. Pull out the props you mentioned that are blocking progress: stop propping up corporate sponsors and stop controlling the interest rate. Services and industries that do not deserve to survive will not survive; those that do, will; and new services & industries will rise up to fill the void. It does not need to be engineered by Washington bureaucrats.

The author mentioned education. Education is definitely something we need to focus on - at the state & local levels. Washington was never meant to be involved in it and should not be involved in it. It is not permitted by the Constitution so it is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Eliminating the Dept of Ed will save millions if not billions, and the "federal assistance" (read redistribution of wealth) can stay in the pockets of the taxpayers. Of course states will have to raise their taxes to cover, but that was supposed to have been their responsibility from jump.

The author mentioned federal support for basic research. Companies do their own R&D. Private universities can get donations from industry or their alumni. The Constitution doesn't allow for federal research grants, not without creative interpretation.

The author mentioned federal help in closing states' budget shortfall. I say cut all federal funding for state programs (and all federal mandates OF state programs). Washington has made end-runs around the Constitution long enough and needs to be corralled back within constitutional boundaries. The money that this would free up would be astronomical. States could cancel any previously mandated programs they felt unnecessary, lessening their financial burden, and raise their taxes or do other creative things to cover any remaining shortfall. Citizens would have more money, since Washington wouldn't require so much, having been freed of being a nanny-state.

The author writes: "Finally, our decaying infrastructure, from roads and railroads to levees and power plants, is a prime target for profitable investment." I absolutely agree. Washington should pay for federal highways, railroads, and any other infrastructure it owns. That doesn't mean sending money to the states with a mandate that they figure out how to do it. If it's interstate, it belongs to Washington. There's that jobs program to keep them busy. The state and local governments are responsible for their own infrastructures. Some municipalities have found that privatization helps relieve some of the financial burden. Some haven't, but that is a state and/or local decision, not a Washington one.

The author mentions fixing the financial system. I agree to that statement, but not her assertion that Washington manipulation is the key to the fix. Washington needs to make it clear that there is no more help coming, and put the screws to Bernanke to ensure that that statement is true. If Washington spigot is shut off, the only source of income is the private investor. Banks will lend because they have no other choice. Will they lend to whom Washington thinks is best? Maybe. One thing is sure: they will lend to whom they think has the best chance to pay them back. But, you might say, that shuts out many entrepreneurs who might not qualify for loans in a conventional way. Probably. That's what venture capitalists are for.

The author writes, "What’s needed is to get banks out of the dangerous business of speculating and back into the boring business of lending. But we have not fixed the financial system. Rather, we have poured money into the banks, without restrictions, without conditions, and without a vision of the kind of banking system we want and need. We have, in a phrase, confused ends with means. A banking system is supposed to serve society, not the other way around." I couldn't agree more. The Glass-Steagall Act was one New Deal era law that was still good. Repealing it in 1999 was a critical era, and probably did more to create the 2008 collapse than anything. Washington needs to reinstate it.

I'm not so naive as to think that Washington will make the wises decision and just take their hands off the economy, so I have to accept that they will continue trying to manipulate and manage it. The main problem I see in this recovery, and I spend a great deal of time studying economic news and analyses, is that Washington keeps doing temporary "fixes" and stands perplexed that no one is making permanent moves. A two-month extension is stupid, a one-year extension slightly less so. At this point I don't give a damn what Washington decides, they just need to make a decision that can be seen as a permanent one. Whether is is good or bad, it will lay out a reliable landscape that planners can maneuver around. Only then will we see any real recovery.

 

[Minor Axis]

I read the article several times. You don't seem to be getting what I'm talking about. Apparently you think I'm talking about 1931, the Great Depression, comparing it to 2008. I'm comparing what was done to drag out the 1931 depression (making it The Great) and is being done today, to the inaction of the federal gov't during the depression of 1920 which resulted in a short, painful depression followed by a strong recovery.

What do you think the Federal Govt did to drag out the Great Depression? My impression is that instead of being proactive, the attitude was a tight money policy and let's just ride this out.

~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the recommendations in the article, It is not the job of the federal gov't to pick winners and losers. Yes they do it all the time, but that doesn't mean it's their job. So to try to manipulate the market to squelch the current economy and "create a new one" based on what a bunch of Washington politicians (bought and paid for by big corp., don't forget) figure would be best for the country, is ludicrous. It's just asking for trouble. Pull out the props you mentioned that are blocking progress: stop propping up corporate sponsors and stop controlling the interest rate. Services and industries that do not deserve to survive will not survive; those that do, will; and new services & industries will rise up to fill the void. It does not need to be engineered by Washington bureaucrats.

Generally speaking I agree.

The author mentioned education. Education is definitely something we need to focus on - at the state & local levels. Washington was never meant to be involved in it and should not be involved in it. It is not permitted by the Constitution so it is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Eliminating the Dept of Ed will save millions if not billions, and the "federal assistance" (read redistribution of wealth) can stay in the pockets of the taxpayers. Of course states will have to raise their taxes to cover, but that was supposed to have been their responsibility from jump.

For some reason you think 50 individual Depts of Education will be more efficient than one.

The author mentioned federal support for basic research. Companies do their own R&D. Private universities can get donations from industry or their alumni. The Constitution doesn't allow for federal research grants, not without creative interpretation.

Are you kidding? Traditionally large R&D U.S.government funding has helped give private industry a big leg up. That is my impression. Look at China now.

The author mentioned federal help in closing states' budget shortfall. I say cut all federal funding for state programs (and all federal mandates OF state programs). Washington has made end-runs around the Constitution long enough and needs to be corralled back within constitutional boundaries. The money that this would free up would be astronomical. States could cancel any previously mandated programs they felt unnecessary, lessening their financial burden, and raise their taxes or do other creative things to cover any remaining shortfall. Citizens would have more money, since Washington wouldn't require so much, having been freed of being a nanny-state.

You don't like the Federal government. We could have a discussion about what is more efficient 50 parallel organizations or 1 large organization. The Federal government is what keeps the States heading in the same direction functioning as a country. Yes it has to be efficient, which arguably due to partisan politics it is currently not, but somehow you seem to kid yourself if these functions were pushed down to the State level, ALL of our problems would be solved, we'd be rolling in dough, and we'd get more done. You are entitled to your opinion.

The author writes: "Finally, our decaying infrastructure, from roads and railroads to levees and power plants, is a prime target for profitable investment." I absolutely agree. Washington should pay for federal highways, railroads, and any other infrastructure it owns. That doesn't mean sending money to the states with a mandate that they figure out how to do it. If it's interstate, it belongs to Washington. There's that jobs program to keep them busy. The state and local governments are responsible for their own infrastructures. Some municipalities have found that privatization helps relieve some of the financial burden. Some haven't, but that is a state and/or local decision, not a Washington one.

But using your thinking in other areas, we should just allow each State to figure out how they want to run their highways and then coordinate with other surrounding States.

The author mentions fixing the financial system. I agree to that statement, but not her assertion that Washington manipulation is the key to the fix. Washington needs to make it clear that there is no more help coming, and put the screws to Bernanke to ensure that that statement is true. If Washington spigot is shut off, the only source of income is the private investor. Banks will lend because they have no other choice. Will they lend to whom Washington thinks is best? Maybe. One thing is sure: they will lend to whom they think has the best chance to pay them back. But, you might say, that shuts out many entrepreneurs who might not qualify for loans in a conventional way. Probably. That's what venture capitalists are for.

I don't know. Banks will lend because they have no other choice? Hmm. Using your scenario, my impression is that the economy would get decidedly worse with no guarantee it would ever get better than it currently is.

The author writes, "What’s needed is to get banks out of the dangerous business of speculating and back into the boring business of lending. But we have not fixed the financial system. Rather, we have poured money into the banks, without restrictions, without conditions, and without a vision of the kind of banking system we want and need. We have, in a phrase, confused ends with means. A banking system is supposed to serve society, not the other way around." I couldn't agree more. The Glass-Steagall Act was one New Deal era law that was still good. Repealing it in 1999 was a critical era, and probably did more to create the 2008 collapse than anything. Washington needs to reinstate it.

I believe the author is against bank bailouts.

I'm not so naive as to think that Washington will make the wises decision and just take their hands off the economy, so I have to accept that they will continue trying to manipulate and manage it. The main problem I see in this recovery, and I spend a great deal of time studying economic news and analyses, is that Washington keeps doing temporary "fixes" and stands perplexed that no one is making permanent moves. A two-month extension is stupid, a one-year extension slightly less so. At this point I don't give a damn what Washington decides, they just need to make a decision that can be seen as a permanent one. Whether is is good or bad, it will lay out a reliable landscape that planners can maneuver around. Only then will we see any real recovery.

And for some reason you think that if the Federal Government evaporated, the States would somehow avoid the same problems as if there is a dynamic that only happens on the Federal level.

 

[Accountable]

So do you think you can realistically compare one resession with any other as if they were all the same?

Minor's article is doing exactly that, comparing the Great Depression to our current crisis. Reacting to any crisis needs to take into account how past similar crises were reacted to. To ignore history is, um, unwise. Surely you agree with that? Are all recessions & depressions the same? Not exactly, no, but when similar elements exist it would be foolish to ignore an analysis of how it was handled back then. Otherwise we risk fucking up exactly as they did or, worse, fucking up where they succeeded. I think we are doing the first thing as compared to the 1929 depression, and the second thing as compared to the 1920.

The fact is that few living today were actually there. My parents and their siblings who lived through it have all passed away. One thing all of them agreed upon was that the work programs were a great help to the working class who would have been unemployed with little hope otherwise.

Anecdotes are important, and I'm sure the programs helped them as you say. But there is a school of thought that government intervention created the situation that made those other programs necessary. I'm not saying that the work programs were wrong or that they didn't help, only that Washington wouldn't have needed to rescue them if Washington hadn't intervened in the first place. I won't bother repeating this throughout, but it applies to much of the rest of your post.

Many excellent programs like Social Security came from that era - I'm telling you right now that the poverty level of the elderly then was nothing like it is today. Elderly with no family or with family with little means lived from meal to meal and days often passed between meals.

I'm sure Social Security saved lives back then. The long-term effect has been damaging to our society in that we have lost the sense of personal obligation the young should have to the old. The old are now seen as a bothersome burden rather than a source of history, wisdom, and cultural continuity. Plus today, it encourages poor retirement planning. As I recall, it was never meant to cover all retirement expenses, but people started thinking of it as a retirement plan, much like people mistakenly think that mortgages are good because you can use them as a tax shelter, or that it's wise to set up your tax withholding to give a large refund. The result was that people failed to save adequately. That trend is changing now, but it's still a problem. Not to mention that the whole program is unconstitutional, without an interpretation so creative as to make Ray Bradbury envious.

Wages and working conditions were massively improved. The weekends off and 8 hour work days and overtime pay we take for granted did not exist for most workers prior to FDR. I don't know about you, but I enjoy my weekends off, and even though I'm salaried today, I built a large part of my nest egg on overtime pay provided for in the FLSA of 1938. I worked many 7 day weeks and 12-16 hour days in the early years, and I am very thankful for overtime pay.

This is Machiavellian thinking. You're welcome to it, but I can't support it. This same kind of mindset ignores abuse, justifies crime, and even starts wars. The ends never justifies the means.

Labor is the capital of the working class, and for some reason, the right wing in the United States is in a constant state of seeking to fuck over the working classes in favor of the monied classes. How working class people like carpenters, plumbers, teachers etc could support their own demise by embracing right wing policy makes absolutely no sense to me.

Then stop voting Republicrat.

The blue bloods and industrial class wealthy barons despised FDR because in their words he "betrayed his class" and sought to help the working class improve their lives. We need another FDR today. Obama is damned sure no FDR - he is Republican lite. I laugh my ass off when the uninformed and ignorant call him a socialist as they sell their economic souls to looters in the top 1%.

I agree with you about Obama.

I don't know about you, but I'm suspicious of any politician or party or political philosophy that suggests I should sacrifice the economic well being of my family so that the monied classes can pay less tax and hoard even more money while they pay the working class less and less.

Then stop voting Republicrat.
You and I both want to get big money influence out of government. We just disagree on how, and then what role gov't should play after that.

 

[Accountable]

What do you think the Federal Govt did to drag out the Great Depression? My impression is that instead of being proactive, the attitude was a tight money policy and let's just ride this out.

They intervened. They tried to force a recovery by throwing money all over the place. The businesses who could have invested didn't invest because they didn't need to. Uncle Sam was handing out money. If I had a choice between spending my own money or getting free money, and knew that spending my money would stop the free money from coming, I'd keep my money in my pocket. Wouldn't you?

Generally speaking I agree.

There's another one!

For some reason you think 50 individual Depts of Education will be more efficient than one.

Efficient? What's efficient about one giant centralized dept of ed? BTW, we still have 50 depts as well.

The federal government was set up to handle federal things: interstate and international. Education is intrastate, arguably local or even individual. To claim that one bureaucrat in Washington knows the one best way for every child in every socioeconomic situation is folly. Decentralization is always better when the goal is continuous improvement. One centralized agency is a monopoly, which is anathema to innovation and improvement.

Are you kidding? Traditionally large R&D U.S.government funding has helped give private industry a big leg up. That is my impression. Look at China now.

A historical fact that something was done is not proof that it was the best way to do it. Of course federal funding helped. Free money always helps. It doesn't mean that it couldn't or wouldn't have been done anyway. The fact that private R&D exists gives lie to that theory.

You don't like the Federal government.

Not true. The federal gov't is vital and necessary in some situations and unnecessary or even harmful in other situations. The same can be said for state gov't, local gov't, and individual action. The US Constitution is very specific as to what the purview of the US federal gov't is. Control freak power hounds throughout history have seen the Constitution as an obstacle to their ends, and so have gotten creative with "interpretations" and played on natural human instincts of greed, impatience, and general laziness to circumvent and twist the rule of law in order to gain the power & control they crave.

We could have a discussion about what is more efficient 50 parallel organizations or 1 large organization. The Federal government is what keeps the States heading in the same direction functioning as a country. Yes it has to be efficient, which arguably due to partisan politics it is currently not, but somehow you seem to kid yourself if these functions were pushed down to the State level, ALL of our problems would be solved, we'd be rolling in dough, and we'd get more done. You are entitled to your opinion.

It's not about efficiency. An absolute monarchy is efficient. The less "efficient" the federal gov't is, the more likely we individuals can keep our liberty. This doesn't solve all our problems. New flash: we're never going to solve all our problems.
It's about liberty.

But using your thinking in other areas, we should just allow each State to figure out how they want to run their highways and then coordinate with other surrounding States.

Yes.

I don't know. Banks will lend because they have no other choice? Hmm. Using your scenario, my impression is that the economy would get decidedly worse with no guarantee it would ever get better than it currently is.

What guarantee are you working under now?

I believe the author is against bank bailouts.

Thus my "I couldn't agree more" comment.

And for some reason you think that if the Federal Government evaporated, the States would somehow avoid the same problems as if there is a dynamic that only happens on the Federal level.

Not true. The federal gov't is vital and necessary in some situations and unnecessary or even harmful in other situations. The same can be said for state gov't, local gov't, and individual action. The US Constitution is very specific as to what the purview of the US federal gov't is. Control freak power hounds throughout history have seen the Constitution as an obstacle to their ends, and so have gotten creative with "interpretations" and played on natural human instincts of greed, impatience, and general laziness to circumvent and twist the rule of law in order to gain the power & control they crave.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Minor's article is doing exactly that, comparing the Great Depression to our current crisis. Reacting to any crisis needs to take into account how past similar crises were reacted to. To ignore history is, um, unwise. Surely you agree with that? Are all recessions & depressions the same? Not exactly, no, but when similar elements exist it would be foolish to ignore an analysis of how it was handled back then. Otherwise we risk fucking up exactly as they did or, worse, fucking up where they succeeded. I think we are doing the first thing as compared to the 1929 depression, and the second thing as compared to the 1920.

Comparisons can of course be made between recessions, but the GD is far closer in comparison to what is happening now than your comparison of 1920 and 1929.

Anecdotes are important, and I'm sure the programs helped them as you say. But there is a school of thought that government intervention created the situation that made those other programs necessary. I'm not saying that the work programs were wrong or that they didn't help, only that Washington wouldn't have needed to rescue them if Washington hadn't intervened in the first place. I won't bother repeating this throughout, but it applies to much of the rest of your post.

You are going to have to show some substantial evidence to support your claim that government intervention caused the GD. That's the right wings story and you seem to be sticking to it. Life sucked pretty bad for the working class prior to the crash of 1929, but got rapidly worse soon after. You are going to have to look backward to Hoover and pre-Hoover America for better clues as to what led to the GD. Have you considered that the 1920 recession was not correctly handled and only served to kick the can down the road to the inevitable crash of 1929?

I'm sure Social Security saved lives back then. The long-term effect has been damaging to our society in that we have lost the sense of personal obligation the young should have to the old. The old are now seen as a bothersome burden rather than a source of history, wisdom, and cultural continuity. Plus today, it encourages poor retirement planning. As I recall, it was never meant to cover all retirement expenses, but people started thinking of it as a retirement plan, much like people mistakenly think that mortgages are good because you can use them as a tax shelter, or that it's wise to set up your tax withholding to give a large refund. The result was that people failed to save adequately. That trend is changing now, but it's still a problem. Not to mention that the whole program is unconstitutional, without an interpretation so creative as to make Ray Bradbury envious.

You really need to get over this "unconstitutional" argument. It is a fallacy and a time waster put forth by the top 1% that control the media - and you have swallowed ot hook, line and sinker. SS is here to stay as it should be. Most people realize it is supplemental - and most Americans don't make near enough money to follow the conservo-libertarian philosophy of retirement through 401K or IRA with the median pay of $26,364. Think you could live, invest and retire on that salary Accountable?

Watch this Reuters video:

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/19/first-look-at-us-pay-data-its-awful/

This is Machiavellian thinking. You're welcome to it, but I can't support it. This same kind of mindset ignores abuse, justifies crime, and even starts wars. The ends never justifies the means.

Since when are living wages and reasonable working conditions "Machiavellian thinking"?

You've completely lost me here.

Then stop voting Republicrat.

I'll never vote for another Republican - you can count on that. We need a viable Labor Party to represent the interests of 95% of American workers. Until that happens, the only logical choice for a wage earning family is to force the Democrats to remember that they are the party of the working class. Yes, Democrats have become nearly as corrupt as Republicans - but one thing is certain - Republicans make no bones about fucking over the working class in favor of the monied class. Even you cannot argue that point. So knowing this FACT - it would be quite stupid to cast ones vote for the party you KNOW is going to fuck over your family.

Then stop voting Republicrat.
You and I both want to get big money influence out of government. We just disagree on how, and then what role gov't should play after that.

We both KNOW the Republicans intend to fuck over the working class, and that Democrats, while also corrupt, will at least throw some scraps to the working class to the screams and howls of protest of the Republicans. Knowing this, we have no choice but to relegate the Republicans to the minority they actually represent permanently.

Until we get a labor party to represent the working class, we only have the Democrats. A sad situation to be sure, but there simply is no other rational choice currently.

 

[Accountable]

Comparisons can of course be made between recessions, but the GD is far closer in comparison to what is happening now than your comparison of 1920 and 1929.

You are going to have to show some substantial evident to support your claim. I think you're looking at what's happened since the crash and the resulting gov't intervention, rather than what led up to it. The fact is that the first year of the '20 depression was worse than the first year of '29. Record deflation that hasn't been seen since.

BUT ... can we stipulate that we've wandered deep enough into the weeds that to go any further we'd both have to do some substantial education? Since you & I agreeing isn't going to change Washington one damn bit, I'm comfortable dropping this.

You are going to have to show some substantial evidence to support your claim that government intervention caused the GD. That's the right wings story and you seem to be sticking to it. Life sucked pretty bad for the working class prior to the crash of 1929, but got rapidly worse soon after. You are going to have to look backward to Hoover and pre-Hoover America for better clues as to what led to the GD. Have you considered that the 1920 recession was not correctly handled and only served to kick the can down the road to the inevitable crash of 1929?

Since there was a strong recovery that's not likely.

You really need to get over this "unconstitutional" argument. It is a fallacy and a time waster put forth by the top 1% that control the media - and you have swallowed ot hook, line and sinker.

I mirror basically the same comment to you.

SS is here to stay as it should be. Most people realize it is supplemental - and most Americans don't make near enough money to follow the conservo-libertarian philosophy of retirement through 401K or IRA with the median pay of $26,364. Think you could live, invest and retire on that salary Accountable?

Probably, but that's not relevant since I choose to live more spartan than most Americans would. As you say, SS's here. Any further conversation is just hypothetical.

Watch this Reuters video:

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/19/first-look-at-us-pay-data-its-awful/

I'll have to watch it later.

Since when are living wages and reasonable working conditions "Machiavellian thinking"?

You've completely lost me here.

Since it became the ends you are using to justify the unconstitutional means used to get them.

I'll never vote for another Republican - you can count on that.

Republicrat, not repub.

Until we get a labor party to represent the working class, we only have the Democrats. A sad situation to be sure, but there simply is no other rational choice currently.

You will always stay in the same place until you take the chance to take a step away. Your statement dooms you (us all) to stay in the same situation until someone else does something. It's this dependence that the "Progressive" movement have thrust upon us.