More Economic GOOD NEWS: New Home Sales Up 27%....largest jump in 47 years

[boedicca]

[

What policies, specifically, during WWII helped make the US an economic powerhouse?
Was it:

-"Hands off" free capitalism?
or
-Near complete government control of the means of production?

Think a while before you answer that. And, while you're at it, ask yourself this:

Why did the economy not have a similar rise during Vietnam, or the Iraq/Afghanistan war?

Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan did not happen after a major Depression which had been prolonged by the Government. Nor were they World Wars. The extreme economic activity to conduct a world war in contrast with the abysmal conditions prior to it create a very distorted view of growth.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yep. And Truman wanted to continue FDR's agenda.

Read about it HERE

I think a complete continuation of FDR's agenda would have been a mistake. Much of FDR's success was due to wartime government control of industry during WWII, and that type of Socialism should not be the norm, but more of an emergency measure.

On the other hand, many of FDR's social policies that didn't have to do with controlling industry were quite good.

Social Security, for instance, if it had not been pillaged by successive generations of irresponsible congresses, was an excellent idea.

FDR's bank regulations were sensible and saved the country much heartache until they began to be repealed starting in the Reagan era, continuing through Clinton and Bush.

 

[Zona]

No matter what, Obama bad, republicans good.


Go tea baggers!

 

[Vast LWC]

[

What policies, specifically, during WWII helped make the US an economic powerhouse?
Was it:

-"Hands off" free capitalism?
or
-Near complete government control of the means of production?

Think a while before you answer that. And, while you're at it, ask yourself this:

Why did the economy not have a similar rise during Vietnam, or the Iraq/Afghanistan war?

Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan did not happen after a major Depression which had been prolonged by the Government. Nor were they World Wars.

However, though the effect would not have been as dramatic as a world war, if it is WAR that promotes a strong economy, then there should have been a boost from both these conflicts.

The reason we were so successful during WWII and most of the reason why we ended up with an economic powerhouse afterwards was that government directed industry to move in the correct direction.

Again, I am not saying this is appropriate for most instances, but is in fact a primary reason for our success during that period.

 

[Samson]

[

What policies, specifically, during WWII helped make the US an economic powerhouse?
Was it:

-"Hands off" free capitalism?
or
-Near complete government control of the means of production?

Think a while before you answer that. And, while you're at it, ask yourself this:

Why did the economy not have a similar rise during Vietnam, or the Iraq/Afghanistan war?

Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan did not happen after a major Depression which had been prolonged by the Government. Nor were they World Wars.

When we remove all but 20,000 troops from Iraq/Afganistan there will be a Boom in the American Economy that will inflate the price of Albaca Wool to unprecedented levels.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No matter what, Obama bad, republicans good.


Go tea baggers!

Please don't post your sexual fantasies here.....


and as for your Obama comment....you left wing loons painted yourself into that corner now didn't you?

 

[boedicca]

However, though the effect would not have been as dramatic as a world war, if it is WAR that promotes a strong economy, then there should have been a boost from both these conflicts.

The reason we were so successful during WWII and most of the reason why we ended up with an economic powerhouse afterwards was that government directed industry to move in the correct direction.

Again, I am not saying this is appropriate for most instances, but is in fact a primary reason for our success during that period.

Here is what you are neglecting: The economy is complex with multiple influences. The impact of the entitlement programs enacted by FDR was a much smaller level of GDP than in the 1960s or now. Entitlement spending sucks the oxygen out of the private sector.

You are promoting a myth that the war time spending led to the post war boom. As I posted earlier in a quote by Folsom, it was the tax cuts enacted by a Democrat Congress that fueled the grow. FDR and Truman were each very worried that returning soldiers would plunge the country back into a depression, and wanted another New Deal. Congress rejected that policy, and quite rightly so. They CUT TAXES instead.

 

[Vast LWC]

Here is what you are neglecting: The economy is complex with multiple influences. The impact of the entitlement programs enacted by FDR was a much smaller level of GDP than in the 1960s or now. Entitlement spending sucks the oxygen out of the private sector.

You are promoting a myth that the war time spending led to the post war boom. As I posted earlier in a quote by Folsom, it was the tax cuts enacted by a Democrat Congress that fueled the grow. FDR and Truman were each very worried that returning soldiers would plunge the country back into a depression, and wanted another New Deal. Congress rejected that policy, and quite rightly so. They CUT TAXES instead.

But I am not in fact promoting the idea of wartime spending.

Here is what I am asserting:

Perhaps, if George Bush had capitalized on the post 9/11 sentiment, and asked people to sacrifice a bit more to help with the situation, including asking industry to be more productive in certain directions, then we might be in a much better situation economically than we are now, especially in the federal deficit arena. Now this does not mean I think that they should have gone as far as FDR did, as the need was not as great, but perhaps a smaller-scale approach in this direction might have been for the better.

Instead, the administration stuck to their idealogical guns, cut taxes, asked for nothing except maybe for people to buy more (and go into more debt), and borrowed money to pay for defense products that had many of their components made in Asia.

I'm saying that maybe a little FDR-style Socialism might have served us well during a period of crisis, like it did in WWII.


As far as the entitlement programs went, if successive administrations and congresses had not drawn upon the funds that were supposed to be devoted to Social Security, then SS would be solvent today, and not sucking the air out of the economy.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

More economic good news!!!!
Foreclosure Rates Hit All-Time High In March – 24/7 Wall St.

 

[boedicca]

Here is what I am asserting:

Perhaps, if George Bush had capitalized on the post 9/11 sentiment, and asked people to sacrifice a bit more to help with the situation, including asking industry to be more productive in certain directions, then we might be in a much better situation economically than we are now, especially in the federal deficit arena. Now this does not mean I think that they should have gone as far as FDR did, as the need was not as great, but perhaps a smaller-scale approach in this direction might have been for the better.

Instead, the administration stuck to their idealogical guns, cut taxes, asked for nothing except maybe for people to buy more (and go into more debt), and borrowed money to pay for defense products that had many of their components made in Asia.

I'm saying that maybe a little FDR-style Socialism might have served us well during a period of crisis, like it did in WWII.


As far as the entitlement programs went, if successive administrations and congresses had not drawn upon the funds that were supposed to be devoted to Social Security, then SS would be solvent today, and not sucking the air out of the economy.

Bush was faced with the Dotcom implosion - and rising entitlement burdens. There is no way a vast increase in the size of government would have made things better.

 

[Douger]

Tent sales are predicted to increase 500%.........when the next flood of foreclosures takes place in a few months.

 

[boedicca]

Instead of Hoovervilles, we'll have "Obama Centers For Hope & Change".

 

[Zona]

No matter what, Obama bad, republicans good.


Go tea baggers!

Please don't post your sexual fantasies here.....


and as for your Obama comment....you left wing loons painted yourself into that corner now didn't you?

We are loons and you are the one who is creating a visual of a man with his ballsack on your face?

ok.

Teabagger.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No matter what, Obama bad, republicans good.


Go tea baggers!

Please don't post your sexual fantasies here.....


and as for your Obama comment....you left wing loons painted yourself into that corner now didn't you?

We are loons and you are the one who is creating a visual of a man with his ballsack on your face?

ok.

Teabagger.

YOU SAID IT!!!! Not me.

Perverted sexual deviant.

 

[Vast LWC]

Bush was faced with the Dotcom implosion - and rising entitlement burdens. There is no way a vast increase in the size of government would have made things better.

Why would asking people to sacrifice a little more, or asking companies to direct their efforts in a direction to help the war effort be an expansion of the size of government?

What Bush actually did was in fact to expand the size of government.

 

[boedicca]

That's now what happened during WWII.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Bush was faced with the Dotcom implosion - and rising entitlement burdens. There is no way a vast increase in the size of government would have made things better.

Why would asking people to sacrifice a little more, or asking companies to direct their efforts in a direction to help the war effort be an expansion of the size of government?

What Bush actually did was in fact to expand the size of government.

Incorrect. Spending more money does NOT equate to a larger government...it just means we spent more money on stuff. Now with the creation of 160 new agencies just to oversee the healthcare law....THAT'S GOVERNMENT EXPANSION!!!!

 

[Vast LWC]

Incorrect. Spending more money does NOT equate to a larger government...it just means we spent more money on stuff. Now with the creation of 160 new agencies just to oversee the healthcare law....THAT'S GOVERNMENT EXPANSION!!!!

Right, so all the new agencies and bureaus put in place to form Homeland Security and to fight the war on terror don't count then?

 

[Vast LWC]

That's now what happened during WWII.

That is part of what happened during WWII, but that's not what I said. Instead, I suggested that the above should have been done, but was not.

 

[boedicca]

It's unclear what point you are trying to make.

Bush engaged in a war in response to 9/11. The economy had already taken a hit, with another sucker punch after the attacks. What "sacrifices" do you think should have been made, and by whom?