If The Do Understand Economics.....Why This?

PoliticalChic, “.....then reneged and did even more than Hoover, causing the depression”?
Did you vote for Donald Trump? Both times? You apparently believed something you read or heard, without yourself thinking it through.

Hoover, (who was a very fine man), was elected in 1928. The stock market crashed in October 24, 1929. On March 4, 1933 Franklin Roosevelt was sworn into office. You don't wish to continue believing Roosevelt caused the depression? Respectfully, Supposn


Roosevelt ran for office promising to use the Harding method of ending a recession...
. America’s greatest depression fighter was (Republican) Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed (Democrat) Woodrow Wilson who got America into World War I, ...Harding inherited the mess, in particular the post-World War I depression – almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933, that FDR inherited and prolonged. Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, in their book Out of Work (1993), noted that the magnitude of the 1920 depression "exceeded that for the Great Depression of the following decade for several quarters." The estimated gross national product plunged 24% from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million in 1920 to 4.9 million in 1921.


Then he did exactly what Hoover did to engineer a recession.....the opposite of what he knew would end the recession!!!!!!!

October 19, 1932, he nailed Hoover, observing that in recent years federal expenses had increased by $1 billion "and that I may add, is the most reckless and extravagant past that I have been able to discover in the statistical record of any peacetime Government anywhere, any time." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=88399


"...[a] month after accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the office of president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a campaign radio address to the nation. He focused on the extravagant spending policies of Herbert Hoover’s administration and the federal budget deficits it had created: “Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits,” Roosevelt said. “Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.”
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation


. And this: "... carrying out the plain precept of our Party, which is to reduce the cost of current Federal Government operations by 25 percent." Ibid.



FDR's promises!!!



And.....the very same plan that Harding used to tame an earlier upheaval.

And it worked.


...to begin with, in March of 1933, he didn't fill his cabinet with persons committed to a balanced budget. A pretty much poke 'in your eye.'

Nah....instead the bunch put together the huge spending and administrative expansion of his first hundred day, Douglas knew the real deal.

Roosevelt expanded the federal government and ran up deficits much greater than those of Hoover.



 
1659203854320.png
 
Capitalist market relations, according to bourgeois economics, are based on an agreement. What is a capitalist agreement? This is the relegation of all human activity to the rank of a game of blind chance, a coin toss in the air. Next to the winner, a defeated person is necessarily formed, to whom is woe. The bourgeois economy does not remember such people, they do not exist
 
Capitalist market relations, according to bourgeois economics, are based on an agreement. What is a capitalist agreement? This is the relegation of all human activity to the rank of a game of blind chance, a coin toss in the air. Next to the winner, a defeated person is necessarily formed, to whom is woe. The bourgeois economy does not remember such people, they do not exist


What nonsense.


You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such drivel.
 

"Obliterating Benedict Biden’s Promise: “Inflation Reduction Act” Would Raise Taxes on EVERYONE Making Over $30K a Year

The Biden-Harris regime reiterated this promise last March when then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki discussed tax hikes that were being proposed at the time.

“Nobody making under $400,000 a year will have their taxes increased,” Psaki said.

If Democrats can pass their “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” and if Biden signs it into law, that promise will not just be broken. It will be obliterated. It doesn’t just reduce the limit from $400,000/year down a tax bracket or two. It takes it all the way down.
1659283407783.png

the average tax rate for Americans making over $30,000 per year will go up across the board, and that’s just for 2023. The report continues into next decade, showing increases for most brackets in years to come.

Arguably the worst part about all of this is that the bill doesn’t match the name, as is often the case with legislation coming out of Democrat-run Capitol Hill. We have a near-consensus from economists on both sides of the political aisle saying this will not reduce inflation in the near-term and most are acknowledging that it won’t affect inflation long-term, either."
 

"What Do The Facts Show? The Data Behind Manchin and Schumer’s “Inflation Reduction Act” Contradict The Name


The bill includes $430 billion in new spending on energy and health insurance investments and more than pays for itself by raising minimum taxes for big companies and enforcing existing tax laws, Schumer and Manchin said in a statement.

Manchin and Schumer, in a statement, said the bill would reduce the nation’s deficit by about $300 billion, lower carbon emissions by about 40% by the year 2030, and allow the government’s Medicare health plan to negotiate prescription drug prices. But they did not provide specifics.

Republicans were quick to criticize the move. “I can’t believe that Senator Manchin is agreeing to a massive tax increase in the name of climate change when our economy is in a recession,” Senator Lindsey Graham said. McConnell also criticized the bill, saying it would “kill many thousands of American jobs.”
 
How did the Democrats get Manchin to fall in line???

They gave him a billion reasons to.


As reported on Dick Morris's WABC show, the bill contains a $1 billlion gift to the Appalachian Commission.......run by Manchin's wife.



Federal Co-Chair Gayle Conelly Manchin​

https://www.arc.gov › Staff Profiles

Gayle Conelly Manchin was sworn in as the Appalachian Regional Commission's thirteenth federal co-chair on May 6, 2021, becoming the first ARC federal ...


The other Manchin in Washington: Gayle ... - CBS News​

https://www.cbsnews.com › news › gayle-manchin-app...

Jun 30, 2022 — Now, four years later in her new role in the federal government, Manchin, the commission's federal co-chair, works closely with Appalachia's ...



Democrats don't work to benefit the American people......I guess inflation isn't high enough.



Trump was the People's President.
 
The average worker has never gotten ahead here in america so why would they start to now. It's time for Desantis. He's like a freight train coming. And he has no baggage.
 
The average worker has never gotten ahead here in america so why would they start to now. It's time for Desantis. He's like a freight train coming. And he has no baggage.


You're a fool.

Try living elsewhere......I'll help you pack.
 
PoliticalChic, “.....then reneged and did even more than Hoover, causing the depression”?
Did you vote for Donald Trump? Both times? You apparently believed something you read or heard, without yourself thinking it through.

Hoover, (who was a very fine man), was elected in 1928. The stock market crashed in October 24, 1929. On March 4, 1933 Franklin Roosevelt was sworn into office. You don't wish to continue believing Roosevelt caused the depression? Respectfully, Supposn

The Depression started with implementation of the income tax and overregulation of industry, no FDR in that sense didn't cause it since the groundwork was laid in the 10s before he took office.

But wow, his destruction of State rights and massive government overreach made it a while lot worse
 
Yale has a famous course - Grand Strategy, where bachelors and masters, who have passed a difficult selection, study classical texts and communicate with politicians in order to learn to think globally.
Legend has it that the idea of the course appeared after one of the future professors talked with an official of the Clinton administration - he was responsible for the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe, but did not think at all about the long-term consequences of his decisions.

Discussing which texts future politicians and diplomats should read is an extremely fascinating activity.
It's just a pity that “big strategies”, “great chessboards”, “heartlands” and “rimlands” - in a word, all this stuff - have much less influence on political decision-making than those who write programs of such courses would like to believe.
The problem with all these concepts is that they are based on two very strong premises.
First, the state is a single entity that has some objective goals.
Second: the interests of the people who are in power coincide (or at least may coincide) with the goals of the state.
If you can still believe in the first part, then the second part is very naive.
Decision-makers are guided primarily by their own goals, which rarely coincide with what can be called the “objective interests of the nation.”
Small but cohesive groups successfully lobby for their interests, even if these decisions harm the majority.

How does it work, for example, in the USA?

On the one hand, you have a population for whom wars somewhere in distant countries are a matter of the tenth priority.
For example, in 2015, about 30% of Republicans said they supported the bombing of Agrabah.
The Democrats were more peaceful - 44% of them were ready to accept the Agrabah refugees.
There is only one small problem: Agrabah is a city from “Aladdin".
On the other hand, there are interest groups that know exactly what they want.

I'll add a couple of numbers for context.
In 2019, the Ministry of Defense spent almost $ 360 billion on public procurement - 10 times more than the closest pursuer - the Ministry of Energy (only the Ministry of Health has more budgets, but almost all the money there goes to Medicare and Medicaid, and not on purchases).

Unlike ordinary voters, who do not know what they want so much, that they are ready to bomb even a cartoon city, arms manufacturing companies understand perfectly well that they want to get these 360 billion - and preferably more.
What are they doing for this?
For example, they sponsor research centers like PNAC, which advocate an aggressive foreign policy.
Well, in order for the growing military budgets to go to them, companies are building friendly relations with the military, ensuring that their old age will not pass in poverty.

80% of the generals who retired from 2004 to 2008 began working for companies of the military-industrial complex.
For example, at the end of the noughties there was a consulting company with the wonderful name Four Star Group - elderly generals helped financiers choose the right objects for their investments (and probably helped these “right objects” to receive state contracts).
.
By the way, the Yale program on Grand Strategy eventually turned out to be a great example of why “great strategies” do not exist, but there are only “small interests".
A year ago, one of the sponsors of the course saw that students were told about international relations in a completely different way, “as Henry Kissinger would have done.”
As a result, the director of the program (he also dared to criticize Trump) had to resign - after all, respectable people give money to universities not at all to preach some nonsense there.

Kissinger is undoubtedly an intelligent and informed person.
But according to my information, at least in recent years he has actually been doing business - monetizing his name.
And when I say “monetizes” this should not be read as earning billions: based on what I know, we are talking about much smaller amounts there
In general, when it comes to the bonzes of the first world, we think it's the thunderer from Olympus uttering the will of the gods.
And in fact, this is just retired functionary earns money by giving interviews or speeches.
 

Forum List

Back
Top