the results of austerity in england

[PoliticalChic]

How so?

austerity is to feel pain, it's short term pain, needed to preserve a future.

The best example is Greece. Their not cutting because it's good for their economy, they're cutting to save their economy.

Harding...an even better example:

1. "The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover—falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics—urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored. Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third."http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b

2. “America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt. Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million. One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.” Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online

 

[kiwiman127]

How so?

austerity is to feel pain, it's short term pain, needed to preserve a future.

The best example is Greece. Their not cutting because it's good for their economy, they're cutting to save their economy.

Harding...an even better example:

1. "The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover—falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics—urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored. Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third."http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b

2. “America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt. Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million. One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.” Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online

An opinion from the National Review? Having a rough time finding anything that supports your contention that's unbiased? Again?

 

[syrenn]

How long will TruthMocker spew hate?

Is it just me or can you see the foam gathering in the corners of her posts? Sorta like the stuff dripping from her mouth.

 

[California Girl]

How long will TruthMocker spew hate?

Is it just me or can you see the foam gathering in the corners of her posts? Sorta like the stuff dripping from her mouth.

Not just you, mo chara.

She epitomizes the 'rabid lefty'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How so?

austerity is to feel pain, it's short term pain, needed to preserve a future.

The best example is Greece. Their not cutting because it's good for their economy, they're cutting to save their economy.

Harding...an even better example:

1. "The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover—falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics—urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored. Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third."http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b

2. “America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt. Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million. One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.” Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online

An opinion from the National Review? Having a rough time finding anything that supports your contention that's unbiased? Again?

Only a dunce like you would think that criticizing the source is the equal of finding fault with the substance.

Ooops....did I suggest that you 'think'??

My bad.

 

[kwc57]

how long will truthmocker spew hate?

is it just me or can you see the foam gathering in the corners of her posts? Sorta like the stuff dripping from her mouth.

tdm > View attachment 18550

 

[syrenn]

How long will TruthMocker spew hate?

Is it just me or can you see the foam gathering in the corners of her posts? Sorta like the stuff dripping from her mouth.

Not just you, mo chara.

She epitomizes the 'rabid lefty'.

Seriously.... i can see the foam and that crazy unstable glint in her eyes.

 

[8537]

did his idea work?

Britain retains it's AAA credit rating which Obama managed to lose for the first time in our history.

I'm sure all the unemployed people are consoled that their government's monetary policy garners 3 stars.

You can't eat "A's" and the Brits are paying far higher risk premiums than the US - despite their higher credit rating.

 

[8537]

How so?

austerity is to feel pain, it's short term pain, needed to preserve a future.

The best example is Greece. Their not cutting because it's good for their economy, they're cutting to save their economy.

Harding...an even better example:

1. "The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover—falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics—urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored. Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third."http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b

2. “America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt. Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million. One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.” Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online

Holy shit! Not this again...

The 1921 recession was a post-war demand collapse. Completely expected - and fixed when (get this!) we started selling lots and lots of stuff to a continent that had just been shitbombed into the dark ages.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How so?

austerity is to feel pain, it's short term pain, needed to preserve a future.

The best example is Greece. Their not cutting because it's good for their economy, they're cutting to save their economy.

Harding...an even better example:

1. "The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover—falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics—urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored. Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third."http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b

2. “America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt. Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million. One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.” Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online

Holy shit! Not this again...

The 1921 recession was a post-war demand collapse. Completely expected - and fixed when (get this!) we started selling lots and lots of stuff to a continent that had just been shitbombed into the dark ages.

"Completely expected -"

Really?

So....was there a "post-war demand collapse. Completely expected -" after WWII?

Could your absurd post be based on the fact that Harding was a Republican who ended a deep recession, and FDR was a Democrat who extended the recession into a depression?

Sounds more like you're one of those bought and paid apologists for Democrats.

 

[8537]

Harding...an even better example:

1. "The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover—falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics—urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored. Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third."http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b

2. “America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt. Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million. One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.” Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online

Holy shit! Not this again...

The 1921 recession was a post-war demand collapse. Completely expected - and fixed when (get this!) we started selling lots and lots of stuff to a continent that had just been shitbombed into the dark ages.

"Completely expected -"

Really?

So....was there a "post-war demand collapse. Completely expected -" after WWII?

Why yes, Politicalchic, there was!

Could your absurd post be based on the fact that Harding was a Republican who ended a deep recession, and FDR was a Democrat who extended the recession into a depression?

No, it couldn't be. Because when FDR took office the economy had lost almost 1/2 it's value and remained in free fall with 4000 banks collapsing. By the middle of his first year there was 1 bank collapse and the economy began the fastest four-year period of growth in modern US history.

Sounds more like you're one of those bought and paid apologists for Democrats.[/QUOTE]

 

[Synthaholic]

Holy shit! Not this again...

The 1921 recession was a post-war demand collapse. Completely expected - and fixed when (get this!) we started selling lots and lots of stuff to a continent that had just been shitbombed into the dark ages.

"Completely expected -"

Really?

So....was there a "post-war demand collapse. Completely expected -" after WWII?

Why yes, Politicalchic, there was!

Could your absurd post be based on the fact that Harding was a Republican who ended a deep recession, and FDR was a Democrat who extended the recession into a depression?

No, it couldn't be. Because when FDR took office the economy had lost almost 1/2 it's value and remained in free fall with 4000 banks collapsing. By the middle of his first year there was 1 bank collapse and the economy began the fastest four-year period of growth in modern US history.

Funny - National Review didn't tell her about that!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Holy shit! Not this again...

The 1921 recession was a post-war demand collapse. Completely expected - and fixed when (get this!) we started selling lots and lots of stuff to a continent that had just been shitbombed into the dark ages.

"Completely expected -"

Really?

So....was there a "post-war demand collapse. Completely expected -" after WWII?

Why yes, Politicalchic, there was!

Could your absurd post be based on the fact that Harding was a Republican who ended a deep recession, and FDR was a Democrat who extended the recession into a depression?

No, it couldn't be. Because when FDR took office the economy had lost almost 1/2 it's value and remained in free fall with 4000 banks collapsing. By the middle of his first year there was 1 bank collapse and the economy began the fastest four-year period of growth in modern US history.

Sounds more like you're one of those bought and paid apologists for Democrats.

[/QUOTE]

The good ol' FDR mythology....
....let's check it out:

1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

3. After the stock market crash,, the Dow hit 250 in 1930 under Hoover (it had been 343 before the crash). January 1940, after seven years of the New Deal, the market had collapsed to 151, and remained in the low 100’s through most of FDR’s terms.

4. Federal spending went from 2.5 % in 1929 to 9 % in 1936: Washington’s portion of the economy increased by 360 % in just seven years- with no benefit to the economy.

Warren Harding inherited one of the sharpest recessions in American history in 1921. By July it was over. Harding and Treasury Sec’y Mellon cut government expenditures by 40 %, allowing wages to fall, in a natural recovery to full employment. The cuts, and even sharper tax cuts under Coolidge, produced the long period of growth and rising living standards associated with the Roaring Twenties.
Seems to lead to the conclusion that, unlike Harding, who ended a similar recession in 18 months by cutting taxes and governmental interference, FDR extended the collapse..and turned a recession into a depression.

Need Left-wing sources to indicate same before you'll consider it?

Sure.

5. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


Egg on your face?
No?
Need more?
Sure:

6. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


Here, let me help you with that:

re·tard/riˈtärd/
Verb:
Delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.

Now, why would Liberals worship the failure of FDR....especially in the face of this:

7. John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned “ even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.” Even Keynes say the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.
Covered in Medved's "The Ten Big Lies."

Leads one to the overwhelming conclusion:
Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals

 

[8537]

My gawd you can cut and past other people's ideas with the best of 'em. If you're going to cut and paste from a rightwing hockshop like AEI, at least have the decency to acknowledge them.

Let's explore, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about:

The good ol' FDR mythology....
....let's check it out:

1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

What a waste of electrons. The darkest days of the Depression were not 1931. They were early 1933, when the unemployment rate was above 25%. it continued to collapse after 1931 until reforms were passed in March of 1933.

2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

No, you used the wrong statistics so you arrived at the wrong conclusion. In his first four years in office the economy grew at a pace never matched in peacetime and the unemployment rate fell by a 1/3.

3. After the stock market crash,, the Dow hit 250 in 1930 under Hoover (it had been 343 before the crash). January 1940, after seven years of the New Deal, the market had collapsed to 151, and remained in the low 100’s through most of FDR’s terms.

This is what happens when you believe biased sources. The DJIA didn't bottom out in 1930. It bottomed out three years later, at 41. It then increased five times over, to just over 200, in his first term.

Seriously, is there any source you won't believe?

4. Federal spending went from 2.5 % in 1929 to 9 % in 1936: Washington’s portion of the economy increased by 360 % in just seven years- with no benefit to the economy.

"With no benefit to the economy" except record growth. Well, other than that....


Need Left-wing sources to indicate same before you'll consider it?

5. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

The crash in 1937? Funny you bring that up. What happened to the New Deal programs in 1937? What did the administration attempt to do to the budget in 1937? Hint: The New Deal programs were ended / repealed and the government attempted to balance the budget.


Omelets on your face?

Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince rightwing idiots who would prefer to regurgitate what the radio told them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My gawd you can cut and past other people's ideas with the best of 'em. If you're going to cut and paste from a rightwing hockshop like AEI, at least have the decency to acknowledge them.

Let's explore, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about:

The good ol' FDR mythology....
....let's check it out:

1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

What a waste of electrons. The darkest days of the Depression were not 1931. They were early 1933, when the unemployment rate was above 25%. it continued to collapse after 1931 until reforms were passed in March of 1933.

2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

No, you used the wrong statistics so you arrived at the wrong conclusion. In his first four years in office the economy grew at a pace never matched in peacetime and the unemployment rate fell by a 1/3.



This is what happens when you believe biased sources. The DJIA didn't bottom out in 1930. It bottomed out three years later, at 41. It then increased five times over, to just over 200, in his first term.

Seriously, is there any source you won't believe?

4. Federal spending went from 2.5 % in 1929 to 9 % in 1936: Washington’s portion of the economy increased by 360 % in just seven years- with no benefit to the economy.

"With no benefit to the economy" except record growth. Well, other than that....


Need Left-wing sources to indicate same before you'll consider it?

5. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

The crash in 1937? Funny you bring that up. What happened to the New Deal programs in 1937? What did the administration attempt to do to the budget in 1937? Hint: The New Deal programs were ended / repealed and the government attempted to balance the budget.


Omelets on your face?

Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince rightwing idiots who would prefer to regurgitate what the radio told them.

You couldn't be more incorrect....but you're a Leftie....so that is somewhat redundant.

"...the unemployment rate was above 25%. it continued to collapse after 1931..."

Economist's View: The New Deal and the Great Depression
January 10, 2007
The New Deal and the Great Depression
Rates of Unemployment
1929 -- 3.2% Hoover era begins, March
1930 -- 8.7%
1931 -- 15.9%
1932 -- 23.6%
1933 -- 24.9% (20.9%) Roosevelt era begins, March
1934 -- 21.7% (16.2%)
1935 -- 20.1% (14.4%)
1936 -- 16.9% (10.0%)
1937 -- 14.3% ( 9.2%) Recession begins, May
1938 -- 19.0% (12.5%) Recession ends, June
1939 -- 17.2% (11.3%)
1940 -- 14.6%
1941 -- 9.9%
Numbers in brackets correct for employment in New Deal programs.

Do you know what the word 'collapse' means?
Seems more of a 'thinking' problem than eyesight problem.
True?


More?



"When you go to research the 1930s, however, you find a different story. It is of course true that the early part of the Depression—the years upon which most economists have focused—was an economic Katrina. And a number of New Deal measures provided lasting benefits for the economy. These include the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the push for free trade led by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the establishment of the modern mortgage format. But the remaining evidence contradicts the official narrative.

Overall, it can be said, government prevented recovery. Herbert Hoover was too active, not too passive—as the old stereotypes suggest—while Roosevelt and his New Deal policies impeded recovery as well, especially during the latter half of the decade. In short, the prolonged Depression can be put down to government arrogance—arrogance that came at the expense of economic common sense, the rule of law, and respect for property rights."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=09


"If you're going to cut and paste from a rightwing hockshop like AEI, at least have the decency to acknowledge them."

Clean off your specs....right under item 6, "AEI"

As for your characterization....
"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative[2][3][4][5] think tank founded in 1943. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate".[6] AEI is an independent nonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C."
American Enterprise Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The center is well-known for scholarship.
Equally well-know is the default setting for Leftist to slander any organization that is not Lock-Step Liberal.


Let's review....Harding was successful.
FDR was a total catastrophic failure who turned the depression into
'The Great Depression.'

Yet, which are you seeing as your idol?
Birds of a feather.....

 

[8537]

[
You couldn't be more incorrect....but you're a Leftie....so that is somewhat redundant.

every statistic i quoted is correct.

"...the unemployment rate was above 25%. it continued to collapse after 1931..."

Economist's View: The New Deal and the Great Depression
January 10, 2007
The New Deal and the Great Depression
Rates of Unemployment
1929 -- 3.2% Hoover era begins, March
1930 -- 8.7%
1931 -- 15.9%
1932 -- 23.6%
1933 -- 24.9% (20.9%) Roosevelt era begins, March

Those are annual averages (and based on compiling datasets, since there was no UE rate calculated at the time - but notice that unemployment DID INDEED continue to collapse after 1931. I'm not sure what's more pathetic- that AEI abused the statistics like that or that you found them to be legit.

Various estimated put the max rate at between 24% and 33%. It was not 20.9 when "the Roosevelt era began" in March. One brief look at your own data proves how stupid that idea is. It somehow have averaged 23.6 in 1932 and 24.9 in 1933, but in March of 1933 it was 20.9? LOL.

1934 -- 21.7% (16.2%)
1935 -- 20.1% (14.4%)
1936 -- 16.9% (10.0%)
1937 -- 14.3% ( 9.2%)
1938 -- 19.0% (12.5%) <<<----Austerity budget, repeal of New Deal Programs from late 1937, Thanks for making my point.
1939 -- 17.2% (11.3%)
1940 -- 14.6%
1941 -- 9.9%
Numbers in brackets correct for employment in New Deal programs.

"When you go to research the 1930s, however, you find a different story. It is of course true that the early part of the Depression&#8212;the years upon which most economists have focused&#8212;was an economic Katrina. And a number of New Deal measures provided lasting benefits for the economy. These include the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the push for free trade led by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the establishment of the modern mortgage format. But the remaining evidence contradicts the official narrative.

Overall, it can be said, government prevented recovery. Herbert Hoover was too active, not too passive&#8212;as the old stereotypes suggest&#8212;while Roosevelt and his New Deal policies impeded recovery as well, especially during the latter half of the decade. In short, the prolonged Depression can be put down to government arrogance&#8212;arrogance that came at the expense of economic common sense, the rule of law, and respect for property rights."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=09

This is hilarious! I provide actual, factual data about economic growth and you turn to an opinion piece from Hillsdale. Precious.

As for your characterization....
"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative[2][3][4][5] think tank founded in 1943. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism&#8212;limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate".[6] AEI is an independent nonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C."
American Enterprise Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh gawd..seriously? Surely you know that AEI is a rightwing think tank in the bed of anyone claiming that the solution to every problem is markets?

You know that, right? Right?

Try doing some of your own research. You're first hint at how crooked they are should have been their use of data from 1930 and 1931. But that koolaid tasted good, so you drank it.

 

[California Girl]

did his idea work?

Britain retains it's AAA credit rating which Obama managed to lose for the first time in our history.

I'm sure all the unemployed people are consoled that their government's monetary policy garners 3 stars.

You can't eat "A's" and the Brits are paying far higher risk premiums than the US - despite their higher credit rating.

Here's the thing... and I happen to know a decent amount about the British economy... I earn my living writing this shit.... they may have tipped slightly back into recession, but... and it is a big but.... the businesses there are investing heavily in technology, plant and people... they are hiring, they are spending... they will not be in recession for long. It's a short term pain for long term gain. And that is smart economics.

 

[8537]

Britain retains it's AAA credit rating which Obama managed to lose for the first time in our history.

I'm sure all the unemployed people are consoled that their government's monetary policy garners 3 stars.

You can't eat "A's" and the Brits are paying far higher risk premiums than the US - despite their higher credit rating.

Here's the thing... and I happen to know a decent amount about the British economy... I earn my living writing this shit.... they may have tipped slightly back into recession, but... and it is a big but.... the businesses there are investing heavily in technology, plant and people... they are hiring, they are spending... they will not be in recession for long. It's a short term pain for long term gain. And that is smart economics.

Ah yes, I'm sure. The sun will come out tomorrow! Tomorrow! Bet your austerity-backed dollar that tomorrow, there'll be sun!

The US economy is growing at 2%+. The British economy is shrinking. THe people in Britain are being made worse off. And the US is spending far more per capita on investments in technology and plants. That's why our manufacturing bases is growing and we are creating jobs.

Truly, we are living in a world of people telling us that when the storm has passed the ocean will be calm again. Nevermind all the people drowning.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Ahh nothing says sucess to cons like utter failure.

you people have lost your minds and are nothing but hollow cheerleaders for a stupid party gone awry

Do you ever get tired of hearing yourself chatter?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
You couldn't be more incorrect....but you're a Leftie....so that is somewhat redundant.

every statistic i quoted is correct.

"...the unemployment rate was above 25%. it continued to collapse after 1931..."

Economist's View: The New Deal and the Great Depression
January 10, 2007
The New Deal and the Great Depression
Rates of Unemployment
1929 -- 3.2% Hoover era begins, March
1930 -- 8.7%
1931 -- 15.9%
1932 -- 23.6%
1933 -- 24.9% (20.9%) Roosevelt era begins, March

Those are annual averages (and based on compiling datasets, since there was no UE rate calculated at the time - but notice that unemployment DID INDEED continue to collapse after 1931. I'm not sure what's more pathetic- that AEI abused the statistics like that or that you found them to be legit.

Various estimated put the max rate at between 24% and 33%. It was not 20.9 when "the Roosevelt era began" in March. One brief look at your own data proves how stupid that idea is. It somehow have averaged 23.6 in 1932 and 24.9 in 1933, but in March of 1933 it was 20.9? LOL.

1934 -- 21.7% (16.2%)
1935 -- 20.1% (14.4%)
1936 -- 16.9% (10.0%)
1937 -- 14.3% ( 9.2%)
1938 -- 19.0% (12.5%) <<<----Austerity budget, repeal of New Deal Programs from late 1937, Thanks for making my point.
1939 -- 17.2% (11.3%)
1940 -- 14.6%
1941 -- 9.9%
Numbers in brackets correct for employment in New Deal programs.

"When you go to research the 1930s, however, you find a different story. It is of course true that the early part of the Depression—the years upon which most economists have focused—was an economic Katrina. And a number of New Deal measures provided lasting benefits for the economy. These include the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the push for free trade led by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the establishment of the modern mortgage format. But the remaining evidence contradicts the official narrative.

Overall, it can be said, government prevented recovery. Herbert Hoover was too active, not too passive—as the old stereotypes suggest—while Roosevelt and his New Deal policies impeded recovery as well, especially during the latter half of the decade. In short, the prolonged Depression can be put down to government arrogance—arrogance that came at the expense of economic common sense, the rule of law, and respect for property rights."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=09

This is hilarious! I provide actual, factual data about economic growth and you turn to an opinion piece from Hillsdale. Precious.

As for your characterization....
"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative[2][3][4][5] think tank founded in 1943. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate".[6] AEI is an independent nonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C."
American Enterprise Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh gawd..seriously? Surely you know that AEI is a rightwing think tank in the bed of anyone claiming that the solution to every problem is markets?

You know that, right? Right?

Try doing some of your own research. You're first hint at how crooked they are should have been their use of data from 1930 and 1931. But that koolaid tasted good, so you drank it.

So....you don't dispute that Harding was the problem solver, and FDR was the cause of the problem?

Good.


You're never too old to learn.