The great depression II

[Diuretic]

but spending on what?

That more than anything is the question?

I wouldn't advocate a road to nowhere or something useless but I suppose the government looks to employ (not directly of course) sectors of the economy that can provide such things as infrastructure. I mean if there's a highway upgraded or a bridge rebuilt it engages more than the companies building those things. They need to get resources like steel and cement and what have you (never been a road or bridge builder) and they employ professional engineers to design them and so on, a sort of knock-on effect. And perhaps tax cuts are used to encourage ordinary people to consume and stimulate another sector of the economy.

 

[Truthmatters]

You're seeing things through ideological lenses. Read what Rothbard wrote on the Depression:

an excerpt: Hoover's Attack on Laissez-Faire - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute

Numbers prove that the economy was recovering until 1936, agreed. But I fail to see the correlation between that and FDR's policies. Logic tells me that if FDR's policies were the reason for recovery, it wouldn't have taken 9 years for recovery to happen. So the conclusion that can be reached is that FDR's policies impeded recovery, as it was trying hard to happen, and had seen some light in a reduction of unemployment during the years, but was ultimately blocked by FDR until 1945.

I thought the new revisionist history was to say that the New Deal wasn't big enough, and that's why it took 9 years? Only WWII was large enough to pull our economy out of depression? When revisionists agree on how history transpired, let me know.

MISES!!!!!!


when will you guys learn that they are partisan hacks?

Partisan? For who? I think you meant "biased." But you put up articles and what not by Milton Friedman and have had articles that quote Paul Krugman, both of whom are biased statists who are of course going to agree that government intervention is the holy grail.

Do you know who Milton Friedman is?

 

[Truthmatters]

Milton Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hes the rights hero and Ronny Reagans guy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Milton Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hes the rights hero and Ronny Reagans guy.

That doesn't make him any less a statist.

Milton Friedman Unraveled

I doubt you'll read that article, but it provides a lot of information on how Milton Friedman is not for the free market, and is in fact a statist.

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont care if hes a statist or not.

He is not a biased source to my point of view at all.

You want to use only your biased sources as proof.

Of course they will agree with you, its the ONLY place you get your info from. Libertarians are just falt wrong .

Unfettered caplitalism fails every time. History proves it over and over and over again.

 

[del]

I dont care if hes a statist or not.

He is not a biased source to my point of view at all.

You want to use only your biased sources as proof.

Of course they will agree with you, its the ONLY place you get your info from. Libertarians are just falt wrong .

Unfettered caplitalism fails every time. History proves it over and over and over again.

give me a specific example of this "proof".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I dont care if hes a statist or not.

He is not a biased source to my point of view at all.

You want to use only your biased sources as proof.

Of course they will agree with you, its the ONLY place you get your info from. Libertarians are just falt wrong .

Unfettered caplitalism fails every time. History proves it over and over and over again.

How do you propose you and I have an intelligent discussion? I debate the merits of the points of your provided articles, despite realizing that they're obviously going to be "biased" to your point of view. You insult whatever source I provide without debating the content at all.

The Mises Institute is only biased towards it's own beliefs, which is the free market. It's not biased for Republicans and against Democrats or any other such nonsense. It makes arguments against interventionism, against statism, and provides evidence as to why those qualities have been negative in the past and why they'll be negative in the future.

So I ask again, how can you and I have an intelligent discussion?

 

[Truthmatters]

Give me any example of where a unfettered market did not shortly turn into something else?

the industreail revolution is a decent example.

The best ones are the various groups of people who came before the monarchies.

You hand bands of people who freely traded with each other for subsistance and had no inforced rules about who and how. They were manipulated by those who wished to gain power and resulted in the development of the monarchies. The kings and queens didnt just appear out of no where you know.

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont care if hes a statist or not.

He is not a biased source to my point of view at all.

You want to use only your biased sources as proof.

Of course they will agree with you, its the ONLY place you get your info from. Libertarians are just falt wrong .

Unfettered caplitalism fails every time. History proves it over and over and over again.

How do you propose you and I have an intelligent discussion? I debate the merits of the points of your provided articles, despite realizing that they're obviously going to be "biased" to your point of view. You insult whatever source I provide without debating the content at all.

The Mises Institute is only biased towards it's own beliefs, which is the free market. It's not biased for Republicans and against Democrats or any other such nonsense. It makes arguments against interventionism, against statism, and provides evidence as to why those qualities have been negative in the past and why they'll be negative in the future.

So I ask again, how can you and I have an intelligent discussion?

You do realize you aretaking a position that is very narrowly held for good reason right?


The fact are that unfettered markets have only ever turned almost imediately into some type of power structure that is dominated by wealth seems to elude you. This type of system is not compatable with democracy. You are being led by your nose to fight for people who would later enslave you. That is who funds the sites like Mises, Cato and the like. Its the one percenters who want to keep you working at a subsitance level. This is why you should NEVER so limit the people you take your info from.

 

[del]

Give me any example of where a unfettered market did not shortly turn into something else?

the industreail revolution is a decent example.

The best ones are the various groups of people who came before the monarchies.

You hand bands of people who freely traded with each other for subsistance and had no inforced rules about who and how. They were manipulated by those who wished to gain power and resulted in the development of the monarchies. The kings and queens didnt just appear out of no where you know.

did i stutter? give me a specific example of unfettered capitalism and how it failed? not your usual vague generalities, deluded one.

hint:feudalism isn't capitalism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I dont care if hes a statist or not.

He is not a biased source to my point of view at all.

You want to use only your biased sources as proof.

Of course they will agree with you, its the ONLY place you get your info from. Libertarians are just falt wrong .

Unfettered caplitalism fails every time. History proves it over and over and over again.

How do you propose you and I have an intelligent discussion? I debate the merits of the points of your provided articles, despite realizing that they're obviously going to be "biased" to your point of view. You insult whatever source I provide without debating the content at all.

The Mises Institute is only biased towards it's own beliefs, which is the free market. It's not biased for Republicans and against Democrats or any other such nonsense. It makes arguments against interventionism, against statism, and provides evidence as to why those qualities have been negative in the past and why they'll be negative in the future.

So I ask again, how can you and I have an intelligent discussion?

You do realize you aretaking a position that is very narrowly held for good reason right?


The fact are that unfettered markets have only ever turned almost imediately into some type of power structure that is dominated by wealth seems to elude you. This type of system is not compatable with democracy. You are being led by your nose to fight for people who would later enslave you. That is who funds the sites like Mises, Cato and the like. Its the one percenters who want to keep you working at a subsitance level. This is why you should NEVER so limit the people you take your info from.

This is not an accurate response to my post.

 

[mash107]

Give me any example of where a unfettered market did not shortly turn into something else?

the industreail revolution is a decent example.

The best ones are the various groups of people who came before the monarchies.

You hand bands of people who freely traded with each other for subsistance and had no inforced rules about who and how. They were manipulated by those who wished to gain power and resulted in the development of the monarchies. The kings and queens didnt just appear out of no where you know.

Yet you want to give Kings/Queens/Government/etc all the power? You seem to be make all the arguments -for- free market capitalism.

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you UNDERSTAND what a democracy is?

 

[del]

How do you propose you and I have an intelligent discussion? I debate the merits of the points of your provided articles, despite realizing that they're obviously going to be "biased" to your point of view. You insult whatever source I provide without debating the content at all.

The Mises Institute is only biased towards it's own beliefs, which is the free market. It's not biased for Republicans and against Democrats or any other such nonsense. It makes arguments against interventionism, against statism, and provides evidence as to why those qualities have been negative in the past and why they'll be negative in the future.

So I ask again, how can you and I have an intelligent discussion?

You do realize you aretaking a position that is very narrowly held for good reason right?


The fact are that unfettered markets have only ever turned almost imediately into some type of power structure that is dominated by wealth seems to elude you. This type of system is not compatable with democracy. You are being led by your nose to fight for people who would later enslave you. That is who funds the sites like Mises, Cato and the like. Its the one percenters who want to keep you working at a subsitance level. This is why you should NEVER so limit the people you take your info from.

This is not an accurate response to my post.

that just how the deluded one rolls, kevin. a couple of complete non sequiturs, an accusation of lying, and then she'll call you "bushian"

 

[Truthmatters]

Kevin, when you use only one source to try and prove you are right it is very hard to talk about this.

Libertarians have never run anything let alone a government or an economy.

They are there to hoodwink you.

Did you read the numbers I gave on FDRs term?

The numbers prove his efforts worked on an economic level.

Where did mises prove anything they have ever said worked in real life?

 

[Truthmatters]

You do realize you aretaking a position that is very narrowly held for good reason right?


The fact are that unfettered markets have only ever turned almost imediately into some type of power structure that is dominated by wealth seems to elude you. This type of system is not compatable with democracy. You are being led by your nose to fight for people who would later enslave you. That is who funds the sites like Mises, Cato and the like. Its the one percenters who want to keep you working at a subsitance level. This is why you should NEVER so limit the people you take your info from.

This is not an accurate response to my post.

that just how the deluded one rolls, kevin. a couple of complete non sequiturs, an accusation of lying, and then she'll call you "bushian"

and your contribution to the thread is a rolling smiley face.

go back and read the quotes and statistics I gave throughout this threasd.

 

[Truthmatters]

no you are?


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


read once in awhile

heres some real facts

 

[mash107]

Do you UNDERSTAND what a democracy is?

When Obama says we have to accept his policies or disaster awaits, not the U.S. anymore.

Plus we were founded as a representative Republic, not a mobocracy!

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you UNDERSTAND what a democracy is?

When Obama says we have to accept his policies or disaster awaits, not the U.S. anymore.

Plus we were founded as a representative Republic, not a mobocracy!

You do understand we had an election right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, when you use only one source to try and prove you are right it is very hard to talk about this.

Libertarians have never run anything let alone a government or an economy.

They are there to hoodwink you.

Did you read the numbers I gave on FDRs term?

The numbers prove his efforts worked on an economic level.

Where did mises prove anything they have ever said worked in real life?

If all I ever did was quote Mises it still in no way stops you from debating the information provided.