How the GOP won the economic spin war: 3 theories

[Urkie]

I just told you in the previous post. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to ignore my point.

I think you just answered my question in the previous post as well...Yes you are that naive.

So you're conception of a debate is where you state your opinion and then everyone agrees with you?

Go back to kindergarten where you belong.

Thanks for your valuable insight buddy...

I don't expect people to agree with my opinion but I expect people to you know....actually read my post and address the point I'm trying to make. That's a debate.

 

[Urkie]

Don't you have a toilet to inspect rather than bothering us with misinformation you learned in 7th grade history?

How is it inaccurate? If it's misinformation then what really happened? I'm waiting....

Well, there was the recession of 1919, 7 months. Then the Depression of 1920-21, 18 months. Both cured without massive government intervention.
In WW1 none of the European powers was bombed extensively. Britain retained its Empire. As did France.
The Depression didn't start until well after WW1.
The US was never in serious danger of turning either communist or fascist.
So other than every fact being wrong, there was nothing inaccurate.

The booming 20's created an economic bubble. Speculators ran wild believing stocks would never go down. They wanted more and more and more until the bottom fell out. Why did it happen? Overconfidence and lack of regulation. Notice since then, bubbles occur much less frequently. Only when part of the regulations put in place to prevent another bubble started to get stripped away did another one occur.

That's the truth.

 

[grunt11b]

How the GOP won the economic spin war: 3 theories - Yahoo! News

New York – A majority of Americans buy the GOP's claims that slashing spending would strengthen the fragile recovery — even if many economists disagree

And

2. Voters don't understand economics
Americans care more about creating jobs than reducing federal debt, says Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. Yet they keep repeating the GOP's "ridiculous message" that cutting spending will help create jobs, and slashing taxes will somehow reduce the deficit when "tackling the deficit would make matters worse, not better, for those hurting most." What's behind this jarring disconnect? "Public ignorance."

If anyone knew economics including the dipshat GOP they would know that cutting spending and lowering taxes isn't going to create jobs and reduce deficit at the same time, something has to give.

Name calling is only going to create enemies.

GOP knows deficits do not hurt until it comes time to pay on them. So increasing the debt by lowering taxes will result in more money in the economy for a couple years.

It's funny how the left talk about deficits, being that their messiah has just sunk this country about 2.5 trillion dollars deeper into one, more money then all of the previous presidents in the history of this country combined have ever spent.

 

[grunt11b]

Sad after all these years of tax cutting and war spending and growing government no new jobs were created. Obviously it does't work. The repulican policies have of Bush etal have bankrupted our nation. We may now be beyond repair. For them it's about power they care not about how they get there.

Wait for it. Someone will claim that Obama has increased the debt 5 trillion in 2 and half years when he actually inherited most of that debt from Bush as well. Bush's tax cuts and increase in spending put this country in a pretty tough spot.

But all the right wants to do is continue this ponzi scheme that has allowed the richest men in this country to pay less taxes percentage wise then someone in the middle class. The middle class is shrinking because of it and before someone says that the economy sucking did that. It actually started to shrink before the recession.

 

[The Rabbi]

How is it inaccurate? If it's misinformation then what really happened? I'm waiting....

Well, there was the recession of 1919, 7 months. Then the Depression of 1920-21, 18 months. Both cured without massive government intervention.
In WW1 none of the European powers was bombed extensively. Britain retained its Empire. As did France.
The Depression didn't start until well after WW1.
The US was never in serious danger of turning either communist or fascist.
So other than every fact being wrong, there was nothing inaccurate.

The booming 20's created an economic bubble. Speculators ran wild believing stocks would never go down. They wanted more and more and more until the bottom fell out. Why did it happen? Overconfidence and lack of regulation. Notice since then, bubbles occur much less frequently. Only when part of the regulations put in place to prevent another bubble started to get stripped away did another one occur.

That's the truth.

Actually we had bubbles in the 1960s (transistors), the 1970s (silver etc), the 1980s (LBOs), the 1990s (tech), and the 2000s (land).
Regulation hasn't prevented anything except prosperity.

 

[Urkie]

Actually we had bubbles in the 1960s (transistors), the 1970s (silver etc), the 1980s (LBOs), the 1990s (tech), and the 2000s (land).
Regulation hasn't prevented anything except prosperity.

I guess what I should have said is that the regulations made bubble bursts less painful and easier to recover from. It also made large bubbles pretty much obsolete until Glass-Stegall was pretty much thrown out the window.

As for the last part. That's a statement that you can't possibly prove. If you're going to use the 20's as an example of how minimal regulation is a good thing then you better start to recognize that, that wasn't true prosperity, it was all fake.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually we had bubbles in the 1960s (transistors), the 1970s (silver etc), the 1980s (LBOs), the 1990s (tech), and the 2000s (land).
Regulation hasn't prevented anything except prosperity.

I guess what I should have said is that the regulations made bubble bursts less painful and easier to recover from. It also made large bubbles pretty much obsolete until Glass-Stegall was pretty much thrown out the window.

As for the last part. That's a statement that you can't possibly prove. If you're going to use the 20's as an example of how minimal regulation is a good thing then you better start to recognize that, that wasn't true prosperity, it was all fake.

How would regulation do such a thing when it failed to prevent the event in the first place?
How do you distinguish "true prosperity" from "fake prosperity"? I know, true prosperity happens when Democrats hand out goodies to their supporters. Fake prosperity happens when the GOP runs things.

The truth is that the more gov't has intervened the less prosperity we have had. This is simply a fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you see the chart? Do you understand that Obama inherited a situation where debt as a percentage of GDP was within norm and expanded spending to ratios not seen since WW2?

This is really pretty simple, you know.

I see it. I'm not going deny that Obama increased spending. To say otherwise would be a lie but what I am saying that even if he didn't increase spending, he still would have inherited over 1 trillion in debt. So it was guaranteed that debt as a percentage of GDP was going to increase before he became president.

Are you trying to argue that, even if Obama had made significant inroads on reducing the debt, the debt as a percentage of GDP would have increased?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is it inaccurate? If it's misinformation then what really happened? I'm waiting....

Well, there was the recession of 1919, 7 months. Then the Depression of 1920-21, 18 months. Both cured without massive government intervention.
In WW1 none of the European powers was bombed extensively. Britain retained its Empire. As did France.
The Depression didn't start until well after WW1.
The US was never in serious danger of turning either communist or fascist.
So other than every fact being wrong, there was nothing inaccurate.

The booming 20's created an economic bubble. Speculators ran wild believing stocks would never go down. They wanted more and more and more until the bottom fell out. Why did it happen? Overconfidence and lack of regulation. Notice since then, bubbles occur much less frequently. Only when part of the regulations put in place to prevent another bubble started to get stripped away did another one occur.

That's the truth.

What would regulation have done? Should there be a regulation against overconfidence and the false belief that the market will not crash? Do you seriously believe that anyone would have tried to pass a regulation mandating that no one buy a stock if some government board had determined it was over priced? Are you actually stupid enough to think that regulations can prevent everything that can possibly go wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, there was the recession of 1919, 7 months. Then the Depression of 1920-21, 18 months. Both cured without massive government intervention.
In WW1 none of the European powers was bombed extensively. Britain retained its Empire. As did France.
The Depression didn't start until well after WW1.
The US was never in serious danger of turning either communist or fascist.
So other than every fact being wrong, there was nothing inaccurate.

The booming 20's created an economic bubble. Speculators ran wild believing stocks would never go down. They wanted more and more and more until the bottom fell out. Why did it happen? Overconfidence and lack of regulation. Notice since then, bubbles occur much less frequently. Only when part of the regulations put in place to prevent another bubble started to get stripped away did another one occur.

That's the truth.

Actually we had bubbles in the 1960s (transistors), the 1970s (silver etc), the 1980s (LBOs), the 1990s (tech), and the 2000s (land).
Regulation hasn't prevented anything except prosperity.

No one has even tried to prevent bubbles through regulation. What regulations are attempting to do is lessen the impact of the inevitable crash after a bubble. That just makes the problem worse because it insulates the investors from their bad choices, which is why I opposed the bailout of the banks.

Now, after those bailouts, we see the banks doing the exact same thing they did before, despite new regulations that we were told would prevent them from doing so, knowing that the government will protect them from their stupidity the next time.

Yet we still have idiots that think regulations help.