Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sorry but Reagan isn't running this year. So it's kind of irrelevant.
What is relevant is unemployment has been stubbornly high despite trillions spent on stimulus that we were assured would keep UE below 8%. Thus Obama's polciies are failures and he deserves the blame.
Who aren't you a clever boy! Gotcha! We'll call monetary policy "stimulus" just like Obama's stimulus and confuse people to maek them think I am saying something I'm not.Sez the guy who never provides evidence.
Friedman for Government Intervention: The Case of the Great Depression - Mateusz Machaj - Mises Daily
Friedman is well known for marking the GD down to poor Fed policy reducing the money supply at a critical time.
What do you think increasing the money supply - Friedman's solution the early stages of the Great Depression - is?
Let me give you a hint: It's stimulus. It's the MP equivalent of sending everyone a stimulus check.
Now buy a clue before you start typing.
You are a jerk and idiot with nothing worthwhile to contribute here.
Once again I feel it is necessary to point out that a VERY big factor in why companies have sought to seek cheap labor is American consumer buying habits. As long as we line up day after day choosing price over value and with no regard where an item is made - we are in fact sending a loud demand to manufacturers - "if you want Americans to buy your product - you better make it a cheap price, and then make it cheaper again and again".
I dont care where an item is made. I do care that I am getting decent value for my money. If an American company can provide that, great. If not, I'm buying something foreign.
Most people feel that way. And that's fine.
What is your definition of value in practice?
Does a part of your definition consider the cause and effect of your consumer choice?
Does a part of your definition include the extraordinary negative effect of placing price as a key factor of why you buy something?
I dont care where an item is made. I do care that I am getting decent value for my money. If an American company can provide that, great. If not, I'm buying something foreign.
Most people feel that way. And that's fine.
What is your definition of value in practice?
Does a part of your definition consider the cause and effect of your consumer choice?
Does a part of your definition include the extraordinary negative effect of placing price as a key factor of why you buy something?
My definition of value is: Will this item meet my needs at the best price?
I recently bought a bicycle after 30 years of not having one. I looked at several at all prices. I didnt pick the cheapest because it was heavier and less user friendly. I didnt pick the most expensive because it lacked features I wanted. I picked one that had the best combination and happened to be cheaper than the more expensive one. And it's made in China.
What was the effect? The local bike merchant made money from me and I got what I wanted at a price I was happy with.
And that's really all that matters. If an American company wants to compete they will need to offer something that is competitive. If they can't, they won't sell bikes. And that's how it should be.
Economic conditions of 40 years ago are not relevant today.Sorry but Reagan isn't running this year. So it's kind of irrelevant.
What is relevant is unemployment has been stubbornly high despite trillions spent on stimulus that we were assured would keep UE below 8%. Thus Obama's polciies are failures and he deserves the blame.
That's funny, because with every single republican in the running for 2012, when the question, "Who is your idol?" is asked, they each say:
"Ronald Reagan".
So tell me, Rabbi, who is your idol?
And what is the Republican answer for our high unemployment? Why it's the exact same as Reagan's: "Lower Taxes".
So Reagan is in fact extremely relevant, thank you very much.
Just to clarify, it's not OBAMA's stimulus that failed. ALL stimulus fails...unless of course you're one of connected few to be handed my tax dollars. Keynes was wrong. Friedman/Hayek got it right.
Friedman was a firm supporter of government stimulus. In fact, he blamed the Great Depression primarily on a lack of government stimulus.
you know that, right? Right?
Just to clarify, it's not OBAMA's stimulus that failed. ALL stimulus fails...unless of course you're one of connected few to be handed my tax dollars. Keynes was wrong. Friedman/Hayek got it right.
Friedman was a firm supporter of government stimulus. In fact, he blamed the Great Depression primarily on a lack of government stimulus.
you know that, right? Right?
Your statement is supremely misleading. Friedman and Anna Schwartz presented empirical evidence that lead them to conclude that the economy could have recovered rather rapidly if only the Fed had not engaged in a series of disastrous policies in the aftermath of the crash. The two stated that if we're going to have a central bank, the Fed could have offset the decrease created by bank failures by engaging in bond purchases, but it did not. That is a reasonable criticism.
HOWEVER, Friedman and Schwartz claimed that the depression would not have been a Great Depression if there had been no Federal Reserve in the first place: f the pre-1914 banking system rather than the Federal Reserve System had been in existence in 1929, the money stock almost certainly would not have undergone a decline comparable to the one that occurred.
Big fucking difference to you original statement, wouldn't you say?
Economic conditions of 40 years ago are not relevant today.
Rather what was the UE rate when Reagan took office?
What was the inflation rate? What were they when he left?
For the bonus: How likely are Obama's policies going to produce similar results?
Friedman was a firm supporter of government stimulus. In fact, he blamed the Great Depression primarily on a lack of government stimulus.
you know that, right? Right?
Your statement is supremely misleading. Friedman and Anna Schwartz presented empirical evidence that lead them to conclude that the economy could have recovered rather rapidly if only the Fed had not engaged in a series of disastrous policies in the aftermath of the crash. The two stated that if we're going to have a central bank, the Fed could have offset the decrease created by bank failures by engaging in bond purchases, but it did not. That is a reasonable criticism.
HOWEVER, Friedman and Schwartz claimed that the depression would not have been a Great Depression if there had been no Federal Reserve in the first place: f the pre-1914 banking system rather than the Federal Reserve System had been in existence in 1929, the money stock almost certainly would not have undergone a decline comparable to the one that occurred.
Big fucking difference to you original statement, wouldn't you say?
No, it's not a "big fucking difference".
We agree that a Monetary History advocates the proposition that an expansion of the money supply would have stimulated the economy in the early part of the Great Depression.
In fact, one the lasting legacies of Friedman's brand of monetarism is the supposition that expansion of the money supply can serve as a permanent economic stimulus. By the time he landed in Chicago he was a supporter of fiat currency and strongly opposed using a commodity-based currency ala pre-1914.
Of course an expansion of the money supply stimulates the economy
just like giving your kid a hundred dollar bill stimulates the sale of candy. The problem is you can't keep giving your kid $100 bills forever. Uncle Milty was strongly against the creation of the Federal Reserve and that is a fact. Your statement was HIGHLY misleading regarding his position.
"Uncle Milt" advocated a continuous, ongoing and permanent expansion of the money supply - i.e. giving kids $100 bills forever.
And he didn't oppose the creation of the Federal Reserve - he was in diapers when it was created. He opposed the Fed policy of targeting price levels instead of the MB, not the idea of central bank (in fact, his policies required a central bank)
Economic conditions of 40 years ago are not relevant today.
Well, that's convenient. LOL
So, if that's the case, then what do any figures matter at all? Since there's nothing to compare them to....
Rather what was the UE rate when Reagan took office?
Unemployment Rates:
Feb 1981: 7.4%
May 1983: 10.1%
Feb 2009: 8.4%
May 2011: 9.1%
Obama Wins.
What was the inflation rate? What were they when he left?
Since the inflation rate at the time included a whole load of items that don't get included in the inflation rate today, like food and energy prices, there is no basis for comparison.
For the bonus: How likely are Obama's policies going to produce similar results?
I'd say pretty likely, and you'd disagree. It's a completely subjective question.
The FACTS however, are not subjective.
"Uncle Milt" advocated a continuous, ongoing and permanent expansion of the money supply - i.e. giving kids $100 bills forever.
And he didn't oppose the creation of the Federal Reserve - he was in diapers when it was created. He opposed the Fed policy of targeting price levels instead of the MB, not the idea of central bank (in fact, his policies required a central bank)
Well that's just not true. Believe what you want about Milton, I stand opposed to the idea of a central bank as did he.
What next, you'll try to tell us Friedrick Hayek was really a socialist?
I agree it could be worse. But in spite of the rhetoric, "all of the banks" would not have failed. In fact, we've had thousands fail in spite of the stimulus, TARP, QE1, and QE2. Banks will continue to fail until we see housing stabilize. But we still have government meddling in housing and mortgages! They created the problem (unintentionally) and now they are doing more meddling in what should be a "private" venture. Government has no reason to be guaranteeing mortgages, especially to unqualified borrowers.Ah...but the GOP strategy to do nothing hoping that a failed country will make Obama look bad has succeeded.
I can't speak for all conservatives Huggy, but I would have loved to see the economy come roaring back and sincerely wish the policies and programs implemented by Team Obama had worked. I care far more about my countrymen than I do about politics.
But they didn't work. They have failed, and failed miserably. We have nothing to show for it but a $5T larger debt, a weakened dollar, and our citizens have an increased dependency on government.
It is time to go the other direction. Obama can save his Presidency if he makes a course correction by embracing spending cuts, entitlement reform, and tax policy simplification. He needs to abandon the Keynesian policies that have been proven failures everywhere they have been implemented.
I respectfully disagree. I suggest you step outside of the echo chamber and try to imagine if nothing had been done to shore up the financial crisis Obama and the country was heading into as he took office.
Try to consider what this country would be like today if all of the banks had failed. Consider what the world financial sector would be like if all major banks and lending institutions as well as their insurance organizations had failed. Try and consider what the U S manufacturing sector would be like if GM and Chrysler and all of their suppliers had gone bankrupt.
I believe that you and many have no idea what REAL TOTAL FAILURE looks like. I get it that we are still suffering pain and hardship. I get it that the country is getting weary of the time it is taking to put us back on a course of prosperity. I also get it that much of what happened was built on a bubble that collapsed in the value of housing just as the lending apparatus self imploded. If one is being fair and honest the country was kidding itself on the true value of equity and borrowing against a false net worth for many years based on the totally unrealistic assumption that property values would continue to rise.
I consider you a smart guy. I get it that you would like to have better opportunities. Look at it this way. You still have opportunities that have not evaporated in the wake of the greatest financial fraud ever committed in history. It could be unbelievably worse.
So I posit things are different and you respond "How convenient."
Then you post that conditions aren't comparable today.
How convenient.
Your irony meter off today?
Obama's success is not a subjective question. We have theory and we have history. The theory is that Keynesian type stimulus will not work because it creates the "broken window" scenario. Gov't simply takes money from productive sources and channels it to unproductive ones. No net wealth is created.
Historically the New Deal and every other stimulus program has been a dismal failure. There is no reason, zero, to think this will be any different.
We are 5 months into the REPUBLICAN stimulus plan, remember?
The one Obama got railroaded into signing onto? The 800 billion one, signed into law in December?
Who owns the economy now?
