Keynesian Economics Does Not Work

[Oldstyle]

Most economist agree that stimulus was a massive failure. It was.

The stimulus was a political failure in that it didn't fix the economy. It did however save us from another Great Depression. It created almost 3 million jobs. It worked, it just didn't work as well it needed to.

In what way did spending that trillion dollars prevent a replay of the Great Depression? Other nations chose NOT to go with massive stimulus programs...have THEY fallen into a depression?

TARP is what steadied the economy...the Stimulus was a short term pay off for politically connected groups and companies cashing in on their support for Obama.

The Stimulus was a political failure because it spent huge amounts of tax payer dollars and didn't do what it was designed to do...create jobs!

 

[Billy000]

Most economist agree that stimulus was a massive failure. It was.

The stimulus was a political failure in that it didn't fix the economy. It did however save us from another Great Depression. It created almost 3 million jobs. It worked, it just didn't work as well it needed to.

In what way did spending that trillion dollars prevent a replay of the Great Depression? Other nations chose NOT to go with massive stimulus programs...have THEY fallen into a depression?

TARP is what steadied the economy...the Stimulus was a short term pay off for politically connected groups and companies cashing in on their support for Obama.

The Stimulus was a political failure because it spent huge amounts of tax payer dollars and didn't do what it was designed to do...create jobs!

Um TARP didn't do shit to prevent the massive job free fall. You have no proof that it did and you know it. I can give you proof the stimulus stopped that free fall and began to create jobs.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama s stimulus package 5 years later Dems defend Republicans ridicule - Washington Times
When are liberals going to understand that spending taxpayers money on public works projects is not the answer to our economy. These are short term boondoggles that go to Congressional districts where senior Democrats have the seat. Conservatives, however, must get off the income tax cut trip that they are on. We do not manufacture big ticket items in America anymore. If an individual gets a tax rebate and goes out and buys a washing machine, refrigerator, microwave, television, computer, etc. it stimulates the Chinese economy when factory orders go up. JFK's tax cut of 1962 was a success because orders went up for American factories due to the fact these big ticket consumer items were manufactured in the USA.

According to the CBO, his stimulus created almost 3 million jobs still existing today. It also rescued the economy. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. When the stimulus came to pass, that free fall began to level out and jobs began to gain.

Come on Billy, that claim is nonsense! TARP had more to do with rescuing the economy than the first Obama Stimulus did. The fact is that when the stimulus came to pass unemployment kept going up...topping out at over 10%. The stimulus that was managed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi turned into payola for liberal groups that supported Democrats. It was such a bad job creator that the Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to hide how few jobs they actually DID create for the nearly trillion dollars it cost the country. When Barry tried to get a second stimulus through Congress that was basically a watered down version of the first stimulus...he couldn't even get Democrats to vote for it. THAT is how badly those three idiots handled a stimulus program!

1) The stimulus saved the economy. We were losing 500,000 + jobs a month until the stimulus came to pass. Within a few months that massive job loss rate began to level off and CREATE jobs. Yes, the stimulus' overall effect on the economy was slight but it still created close to 3 million jobs (according to the CBO). We lost a total of 8 million jobs. That is why the unemployment rate continued to go up.

2) Again, none of you seem to have a clue what was even in the stimulus. Extending unemployment benefits, large tax cuts; investment in science, infrastructure, and energy is what was in the stimulus.

3) The "jobs created or saved" speak originated from the CBO. Obama cited it. If you understood how the stimulus worked, you would understand the phrase. I can easily explain it to you.

4) Bush's tax cuts cost more than the stimulus did.

If the stimulus really "saved" the economy, Billy...why couldn't Obama get Democrats to vote for the second stimulus that was basically a smaller version of the first? The answer to that is OBVIOUS to anyone who isn't a blinders wearing Obama supporter...they didn't support a repeat of the first stimulus BECAUSE the first one didn't work and they didn't want to get thrown out of office for wasting billions more of the taxpayers money on "shovel ready" jobs that never materialized or "green energy" boondoggles like Solyndra!

The CBO doesn't "originate" anything, Billy! They take data that they are given and make predictions on how different legislation will perform. The term jobs created or saved came from the Obama Administration when they saw how few jobs they were creating despite spending billions and billions of dollars.

As for the Bush tax cuts "costing" more than the stimulus? How exactly does letting Americans keep more of the money that they have earned "cost" them more? The logic of that claim is so convoluted that only a progressive could say it with a straight face.

Don't you see how ridiculous it is that you can't back up anything you say with facts? I can back up everything I say with unbiased sources. You can't.

It astounds me how you people lack a basic understanding of tax cuts. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the gov must borrow for government spending. Revenue is what pays the bills. How do you people not get that?

So let me see if I understand your theory here, Billy...

It's OK for the Federal Government to waste nearly a trillion dollars on a badly thought out stimulus plan...even though we had to borrow THAT money...but it's not OK for the American people to be allowed to keep that amount and spend it on themselves therefore stimulating the economy because then the Federal Government would have to borrow money to pay their bills if they fail to cut spending?

That really makes sense to you?

 

[Billy000]

The

Obama s stimulus package 5 years later Dems defend Republicans ridicule - Washington Times
When are liberals going to understand that spending taxpayers money on public works projects is not the answer to our economy. These are short term boondoggles that go to Congressional districts where senior Democrats have the seat. Conservatives, however, must get off the income tax cut trip that they are on. We do not manufacture big ticket items in America anymore. If an individual gets a tax rebate and goes out and buys a washing machine, refrigerator, microwave, television, computer, etc. it stimulates the Chinese economy when factory orders go up. JFK's tax cut of 1962 was a success because orders went up for American factories due to the fact these big ticket consumer items were manufactured in the USA.

According to the CBO, his stimulus created almost 3 million jobs still existing today. It also rescued the economy. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. When the stimulus came to pass, that free fall began to level out and jobs began to gain.

Come on Billy, that claim is nonsense! TARP had more to do with rescuing the economy than the first Obama Stimulus did. The fact is that when the stimulus came to pass unemployment kept going up...topping out at over 10%. The stimulus that was managed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi turned into payola for liberal groups that supported Democrats. It was such a bad job creator that the Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to hide how few jobs they actually DID create for the nearly trillion dollars it cost the country. When Barry tried to get a second stimulus through Congress that was basically a watered down version of the first stimulus...he couldn't even get Democrats to vote for it. THAT is how badly those three idiots handled a stimulus program!

1) The stimulus saved the economy. We were losing 500,000 + jobs a month until the stimulus came to pass. Within a few months that massive job loss rate began to level off and CREATE jobs. Yes, the stimulus' overall effect on the economy was slight but it still created close to 3 million jobs (according to the CBO). We lost a total of 8 million jobs. That is why the unemployment rate continued to go up.

2) Again, none of you seem to have a clue what was even in the stimulus. Extending unemployment benefits, large tax cuts; investment in science, infrastructure, and energy is what was in the stimulus.

3) The "jobs created or saved" speak originated from the CBO. Obama cited it. If you understood how the stimulus worked, you would understand the phrase. I can easily explain it to you.

4) Bush's tax cuts cost more than the stimulus did.

If the stimulus really "saved" the economy, Billy...why couldn't Obama get Democrats to vote for the second stimulus that was basically a smaller version of the first? The answer to that is OBVIOUS to anyone who isn't a blinders wearing Obama supporter...they didn't support a repeat of the first stimulus BECAUSE the first one didn't work and they didn't want to get thrown out of office for wasting billions more of the taxpayers money on "shovel ready" jobs that never materialized or "green energy" boondoggles like Solyndra!

The CBO doesn't "originate" anything, Billy! They take data that they are given and make predictions on how different legislation will perform. The term jobs created or saved came from the Obama Administration when they saw how few jobs they were creating despite spending billions and billions of dollars.

As for the Bush tax cuts "costing" more than the stimulus? How exactly does letting Americans keep more of the money that they have earned "cost" them more? The logic of that claim is so convoluted that only a progressive could say it with a straight face.

Don't you see how ridiculous it is that you can't back up anything you say with facts? I can back up everything I say with unbiased sources. You can't.

It astounds me how you people lack a basic understanding of tax cuts. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the gov must borrow for government spending. Revenue is what pays the bills. How do you people not get that?

So let me see if I understand your theory here, Billy...

It's OK for the Federal Government to waste nearly a trillion dollars on a badly thought out stimulus plan...even though we had to borrow THAT money...but it's not OK for the American people to be allowed to keep that amount and spend it on themselves therefore stimulating the economy because then the Federal Government would have to borrow money to pay their bills if they fail to cut spending?

That really makes sense to you?

The problem with Bush's tax cuts is that most of it went to the wealthy class. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That's it. That's all those cuts had to show for. Twice as many private jobs were created in Obama's first term than both of Bush's. Believe it.

Tell me if you can understand that tax cuts can create jobs through more consumer spending, then why wouldn't you agree that extending unemployment benefits created jobs as well? People who would otherwise not be spending money were spending money. A lot of it.

 

[Oldstyle]

The

Obama s stimulus package 5 years later Dems defend Republicans ridicule - Washington Times
When are liberals going to understand that spending taxpayers money on public works projects is not the answer to our economy. These are short term boondoggles that go to Congressional districts where senior Democrats have the seat. Conservatives, however, must get off the income tax cut trip that they are on. We do not manufacture big ticket items in America anymore. If an individual gets a tax rebate and goes out and buys a washing machine, refrigerator, microwave, television, computer, etc. it stimulates the Chinese economy when factory orders go up. JFK's tax cut of 1962 was a success because orders went up for American factories due to the fact these big ticket consumer items were manufactured in the USA.

According to the CBO, his stimulus created almost 3 million jobs still existing today. It also rescued the economy. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. When the stimulus came to pass, that free fall began to level out and jobs began to gain.

Come on Billy, that claim is nonsense! TARP had more to do with rescuing the economy than the first Obama Stimulus did. The fact is that when the stimulus came to pass unemployment kept going up...topping out at over 10%. The stimulus that was managed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi turned into payola for liberal groups that supported Democrats. It was such a bad job creator that the Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to hide how few jobs they actually DID create for the nearly trillion dollars it cost the country. When Barry tried to get a second stimulus through Congress that was basically a watered down version of the first stimulus...he couldn't even get Democrats to vote for it. THAT is how badly those three idiots handled a stimulus program!

1) The stimulus saved the economy. We were losing 500,000 + jobs a month until the stimulus came to pass. Within a few months that massive job loss rate began to level off and CREATE jobs. Yes, the stimulus' overall effect on the economy was slight but it still created close to 3 million jobs (according to the CBO). We lost a total of 8 million jobs. That is why the unemployment rate continued to go up.

2) Again, none of you seem to have a clue what was even in the stimulus. Extending unemployment benefits, large tax cuts; investment in science, infrastructure, and energy is what was in the stimulus.

3) The "jobs created or saved" speak originated from the CBO. Obama cited it. If you understood how the stimulus worked, you would understand the phrase. I can easily explain it to you.

4) Bush's tax cuts cost more than the stimulus did.

If the stimulus really "saved" the economy, Billy...why couldn't Obama get Democrats to vote for the second stimulus that was basically a smaller version of the first? The answer to that is OBVIOUS to anyone who isn't a blinders wearing Obama supporter...they didn't support a repeat of the first stimulus BECAUSE the first one didn't work and they didn't want to get thrown out of office for wasting billions more of the taxpayers money on "shovel ready" jobs that never materialized or "green energy" boondoggles like Solyndra!

The CBO doesn't "originate" anything, Billy! They take data that they are given and make predictions on how different legislation will perform. The term jobs created or saved came from the Obama Administration when they saw how few jobs they were creating despite spending billions and billions of dollars.

As for the Bush tax cuts "costing" more than the stimulus? How exactly does letting Americans keep more of the money that they have earned "cost" them more? The logic of that claim is so convoluted that only a progressive could say it with a straight face.

Don't you see how ridiculous it is that you can't back up anything you say with facts? I can back up everything I say with unbiased sources. You can't.

It astounds me how you people lack a basic understanding of tax cuts. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the gov must borrow for government spending. Revenue is what pays the bills. How do you people not get that?

So let me see if I understand your theory here, Billy...

It's OK for the Federal Government to waste nearly a trillion dollars on a badly thought out stimulus plan...even though we had to borrow THAT money...but it's not OK for the American people to be allowed to keep that amount and spend it on themselves therefore stimulating the economy because then the Federal Government would have to borrow money to pay their bills if they fail to cut spending?

That really makes sense to you?

The problem with Bush's tax cuts is that most of it went to the wealthy class. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That's it. That's all those cuts had to show for. Twice as many private jobs were created in Obama's first term than both of Bush's. Believe it.

Tell me if you can understand that tax cuts can create jobs through more consumer spending, then why wouldn't you agree that extending unemployment benefits created jobs as well? People who would otherwise not be spending money were spending money. A lot of it.

Ah yes...the Progressive myth that unemployment spending stimulates the economy! Quite simply, Billy...if that WERE the case? Then why not triple the amount of money that we give people on unemployment? Think of all the jobs we would create with THAT amount of money being pumped into the economy!

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth is that increasing unemployment payouts doesn't create jobs it creates crushing interest payments on debt.

 

[Billy000]

The

Obama s stimulus package 5 years later Dems defend Republicans ridicule - Washington Times
When are liberals going to understand that spending taxpayers money on public works projects is not the answer to our economy. These are short term boondoggles that go to Congressional districts where senior Democrats have the seat. Conservatives, however, must get off the income tax cut trip that they are on. We do not manufacture big ticket items in America anymore. If an individual gets a tax rebate and goes out and buys a washing machine, refrigerator, microwave, television, computer, etc. it stimulates the Chinese economy when factory orders go up. JFK's tax cut of 1962 was a success because orders went up for American factories due to the fact these big ticket consumer items were manufactured in the USA.

According to the CBO, his stimulus created almost 3 million jobs still existing today. It also rescued the economy. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. When the stimulus came to pass, that free fall began to level out and jobs began to gain.

Come on Billy, that claim is nonsense! TARP had more to do with rescuing the economy than the first Obama Stimulus did. The fact is that when the stimulus came to pass unemployment kept going up...topping out at over 10%. The stimulus that was managed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi turned into payola for liberal groups that supported Democrats. It was such a bad job creator that the Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to hide how few jobs they actually DID create for the nearly trillion dollars it cost the country. When Barry tried to get a second stimulus through Congress that was basically a watered down version of the first stimulus...he couldn't even get Democrats to vote for it. THAT is how badly those three idiots handled a stimulus program!

1) The stimulus saved the economy. We were losing 500,000 + jobs a month until the stimulus came to pass. Within a few months that massive job loss rate began to level off and CREATE jobs. Yes, the stimulus' overall effect on the economy was slight but it still created close to 3 million jobs (according to the CBO). We lost a total of 8 million jobs. That is why the unemployment rate continued to go up.

2) Again, none of you seem to have a clue what was even in the stimulus. Extending unemployment benefits, large tax cuts; investment in science, infrastructure, and energy is what was in the stimulus.

3) The "jobs created or saved" speak originated from the CBO. Obama cited it. If you understood how the stimulus worked, you would understand the phrase. I can easily explain it to you.

4) Bush's tax cuts cost more than the stimulus did.

If the stimulus really "saved" the economy, Billy...why couldn't Obama get Democrats to vote for the second stimulus that was basically a smaller version of the first? The answer to that is OBVIOUS to anyone who isn't a blinders wearing Obama supporter...they didn't support a repeat of the first stimulus BECAUSE the first one didn't work and they didn't want to get thrown out of office for wasting billions more of the taxpayers money on "shovel ready" jobs that never materialized or "green energy" boondoggles like Solyndra!

The CBO doesn't "originate" anything, Billy! They take data that they are given and make predictions on how different legislation will perform. The term jobs created or saved came from the Obama Administration when they saw how few jobs they were creating despite spending billions and billions of dollars.

As for the Bush tax cuts "costing" more than the stimulus? How exactly does letting Americans keep more of the money that they have earned "cost" them more? The logic of that claim is so convoluted that only a progressive could say it with a straight face.

Don't you see how ridiculous it is that you can't back up anything you say with facts? I can back up everything I say with unbiased sources. You can't.

It astounds me how you people lack a basic understanding of tax cuts. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the gov must borrow for government spending. Revenue is what pays the bills. How do you people not get that?

So let me see if I understand your theory here, Billy...

It's OK for the Federal Government to waste nearly a trillion dollars on a badly thought out stimulus plan...even though we had to borrow THAT money...but it's not OK for the American people to be allowed to keep that amount and spend it on themselves therefore stimulating the economy because then the Federal Government would have to borrow money to pay their bills if they fail to cut spending?

That really makes sense to you?

The problem with Bush's tax cuts is that most of it went to the wealthy class. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That's it. That's all those cuts had to show for. Twice as many private jobs were created in Obama's first term than both of Bush's. Believe it.

Tell me if you can understand that tax cuts can create jobs through more consumer spending, then why wouldn't you agree that extending unemployment benefits created jobs as well? People who would otherwise not be spending money were spending money. A lot of it.

Ah yes...the Progressive myth that unemployment spending stimulates the economy! Quite simply, Billy...if that WERE the case? Then why not triple the amount of money that we give people on unemployment? Think of all the jobs we would create with THAT amount of money being pumped into the economy!

The

Obama s stimulus package 5 years later Dems defend Republicans ridicule - Washington Times
When are liberals going to understand that spending taxpayers money on public works projects is not the answer to our economy. These are short term boondoggles that go to Congressional districts where senior Democrats have the seat. Conservatives, however, must get off the income tax cut trip that they are on. We do not manufacture big ticket items in America anymore. If an individual gets a tax rebate and goes out and buys a washing machine, refrigerator, microwave, television, computer, etc. it stimulates the Chinese economy when factory orders go up. JFK's tax cut of 1962 was a success because orders went up for American factories due to the fact these big ticket consumer items were manufactured in the USA.

According to the CBO, his stimulus created almost 3 million jobs still existing today. It also rescued the economy. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. When the stimulus came to pass, that free fall began to level out and jobs began to gain.

Come on Billy, that claim is nonsense! TARP had more to do with rescuing the economy than the first Obama Stimulus did. The fact is that when the stimulus came to pass unemployment kept going up...topping out at over 10%. The stimulus that was managed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi turned into payola for liberal groups that supported Democrats. It was such a bad job creator that the Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to hide how few jobs they actually DID create for the nearly trillion dollars it cost the country. When Barry tried to get a second stimulus through Congress that was basically a watered down version of the first stimulus...he couldn't even get Democrats to vote for it. THAT is how badly those three idiots handled a stimulus program!

1) The stimulus saved the economy. We were losing 500,000 + jobs a month until the stimulus came to pass. Within a few months that massive job loss rate began to level off and CREATE jobs. Yes, the stimulus' overall effect on the economy was slight but it still created close to 3 million jobs (according to the CBO). We lost a total of 8 million jobs. That is why the unemployment rate continued to go up.

2) Again, none of you seem to have a clue what was even in the stimulus. Extending unemployment benefits, large tax cuts; investment in science, infrastructure, and energy is what was in the stimulus.

3) The "jobs created or saved" speak originated from the CBO. Obama cited it. If you understood how the stimulus worked, you would understand the phrase. I can easily explain it to you.

4) Bush's tax cuts cost more than the stimulus did.

If the stimulus really "saved" the economy, Billy...why couldn't Obama get Democrats to vote for the second stimulus that was basically a smaller version of the first? The answer to that is OBVIOUS to anyone who isn't a blinders wearing Obama supporter...they didn't support a repeat of the first stimulus BECAUSE the first one didn't work and they didn't want to get thrown out of office for wasting billions more of the taxpayers money on "shovel ready" jobs that never materialized or "green energy" boondoggles like Solyndra!

The CBO doesn't "originate" anything, Billy! They take data that they are given and make predictions on how different legislation will perform. The term jobs created or saved came from the Obama Administration when they saw how few jobs they were creating despite spending billions and billions of dollars.

As for the Bush tax cuts "costing" more than the stimulus? How exactly does letting Americans keep more of the money that they have earned "cost" them more? The logic of that claim is so convoluted that only a progressive could say it with a straight face.

Don't you see how ridiculous it is that you can't back up anything you say with facts? I can back up everything I say with unbiased sources. You can't.

It astounds me how you people lack a basic understanding of tax cuts. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the gov must borrow for government spending. Revenue is what pays the bills. How do you people not get that?

So let me see if I understand your theory here, Billy...

It's OK for the Federal Government to waste nearly a trillion dollars on a badly thought out stimulus plan...even though we had to borrow THAT money...but it's not OK for the American people to be allowed to keep that amount and spend it on themselves therefore stimulating the economy because then the Federal Government would have to borrow money to pay their bills if they fail to cut spending?

That really makes sense to you?

The problem with Bush's tax cuts is that most of it went to the wealthy class. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That's it. That's all those cuts had to show for. Twice as many private jobs were created in Obama's first term than both of Bush's. Believe it.

Tell me if you can understand that tax cuts can create jobs through more consumer spending, then why wouldn't you agree that extending unemployment benefits created jobs as well? People who would otherwise not be spending money were spending money. A lot of it.

Ah yes...the Progressive myth that unemployment spending stimulates the economy! Quite simply, Billy...if that WERE the case? Then why not triple the amount of money that we give people on unemployment? Think of all the jobs we would create with THAT amount of money being pumped into the economy!

If it is such a myth, why can't you explain why it is wrong? You can't. More money in the hands of people who need it does create jobs.

 

[asterism]

1) The stimulus saved the economy. We were losing 500,000 + jobs a month until the stimulus came to pass. Within a few months that massive job loss rate began to level off and CREATE jobs. Yes, the stimulus' overall effect on the economy was slight but it still created close to 3 million jobs (according to the CBO). We lost a total of 8 million jobs. That is why the unemployment rate continued to go up.

2) Again, none of you seem to have a clue what was even in the stimulus. Extending unemployment benefits, large tax cuts; investment in science, infrastructure, and energy is what was in the stimulus.

3) The "jobs created or saved" speak originated from the CBO. Obama cited it. If you understood how the stimulus worked, you would understand the phrase. I can easily explain it to you.

4) Bush's tax cuts cost more than the stimulus did.

Not even Krugman thinks that the stimulus saved the economy.

The notorious Romer-Bernstein forecast of the ARRA’s impact is notorious because it predicted a quick return to full employment, which didn’t happen. But it didn’t say that this quick recovery would happen because of the stimulus — in fact, it predicted a quick recovery even without the stimulus. The ARRA’s role was limited to shaving off the peak in unemployment, then getting out of the way as a natural bounceback took hold.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/the-stimulus-anniversary/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

[Oldstyle]

Billy, if you REALLY think that handing out more unemployment money is what's needed to stimulate the economy then explain why we don't simply double what everyone on unemployment receives?

According to Nancy Pelosi that should generate INCREDIBLE gains to GDP! So why aren't we doing it?

The truth is that the massive increases in debt doing such stupid economic policy would in the long run be crippling to our economy. It's why I refer to your claims as a Progressive "myth".

 

[Erand7899]

Nyvin wrote:

The entire theory for enacting the stimulus was what happened in 1929 when the stock market crash similar to 2008. The (GOP) government did nothing and just let things work themselves out on their own ("the market will adjust"). There was no stimulus, no government actions...nothing.
Guess what happened? The depression got much...MUCH....worse...the economy went from being bad to totally falling off a cliff. It led to the 1932 elections with Democrats taking over the government and the peak of the depression didn't occur until 1933...a full four years after it started.
So yeah....we kinda have a good idea what would've happened without stimulus. The central government was the ONLY creditable name out there to get money flowing...it had to take action, and it did.
___________________________________________________

The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve constricting the money supply, when it should have been doing the exact opposite. Add that to the dumbass banking rules that they had at the time, and you have the perfect economic storm.

The depression was extended by the same socialist policies that the Obama administration has used to extend this recession far beyond its natural course.

 

[Oldstyle]

Nyvin wrote:

The entire theory for enacting the stimulus was what happened in 1929 when the stock market crash similar to 2008. The (GOP) government did nothing and just let things work themselves out on their own ("the market will adjust"). There was no stimulus, no government actions...nothing.
Guess what happened? The depression got much...MUCH....worse...the economy went from being bad to totally falling off a cliff. It led to the 1932 elections with Democrats taking over the government and the peak of the depression didn't occur until 1933...a full four years after it started.
So yeah....we kinda have a good idea what would've happened without stimulus. The central government was the ONLY creditable name out there to get money flowing...it had to take action, and it did.
___________________________________________________

The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve constricting the money supply, when it should have been doing the exact opposite. Add that to the dumbass banking rules that they had at the time, and you have the perfect economic storm.

The depression was extended by the same socialist policies that the Obama administration has used to extend this recession far beyond its natural course.

One of the "actions" of the central government was the passage of the Smoot Hawley Tariff which had a critical affect on trade, taking a shaky economy right over the cliff.

 

[Oldstyle]

The United States of America had recovered from dozens of recessions before The Great Depression without stimulus. What proof do you have that the same thing wouldn't have happened if FDR hadn't gone wild with government programs?

 

[Erand7899]

regent wrote:
Of course WWII was a form of Keynes but instead of internal improvements it was bombs,

The end of the depression had nothing to do with Keynes. War materials were durable goods that required everything from raw materials to manufacturing. Creating those durable goods ended the depression. The fact that the government was the consumer did not make it a Keynesian move.

The Keynesian economic theory depends on a managable economy, and that ended when economics went worldwide. Now, stimulus by the US government improves the economy of China.

 

[The Rabbi]

The truth is that increasing unemployment payouts doesn't create jobs it creates crushing interest payments on debt.

The very opposite. It creates incentives for people not to work. Only morons like Billy think unemployment benefits and food stamps are drivers of the economy.

 

[regent]

regent wrote:
Of course WWII was a form of Keynes but instead of internal improvements it was bombs,

The end of the depression had nothing to do with Keynes. War materials were durable goods that required everything from raw materials to manufacturing. Creating those durable goods ended the depression. The fact that the government was the consumer did not make it a Keynesian move.

The Keynesian economic theory depends on a managable economy, and that ended when economics went worldwide. Now, stimulus by the US government improves the economy of China.

I thought the claim was that the New Deal didn't end the depression, it was WWII that ended it. Now we discover that it was durable goods that end recessions/depressions. So, if that's the answer to recessions durable goods, instead of government building infrastructure or bombs then we should just manufacture durable goods to get over a recessions/depression. Will any durable goods do or must they be a certain type?