GOP Loves The Rich, Hates The Poor

[kalm]

What happened later that decade.

The Federal Reserve caused a run on the banks which caused a stock market crash which created a depression that FDR turned into a Great Depression.
What happened before Harding took office?

That's one theory, but FDR's policies carried us for the next 4 decades without a major recession. They must have been terrible, just like free money by virtue of low marginal tax rates and financial degregualion don't create bubbles.

[Baldy]

The Federal Reserve caused a run on the banks which caused a stock market crash which created a depression that FDR turned into a Great Depression.
What happened before Harding took office?

That's one theory, but FDR's policies carried us for the next 4 decades without a major recession. They must have been terrible, just like free money by virtue of low marginal tax rates and financial degregualion don't create bubbles.

And FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act of slaughtering over 6 million hogs and burning farmers crops in the fields didn't cause food shortages and make thousands of Americans to go bed hungry night after night, either. This is only one example of dozens, but it gives you a good idea how idiotic many of FDR's so-called "policies" were.

Oh and BTW, the US went through no less than 5 recessions from the start of FDR's reign until 1960, and two of those are classified as "major". Sorry....

Finally, you didn't answer the question. What happened before Harding took office? I'll give you a little hint. It happened in 1920.

[YoUDeeMan]

I would consider that if a job were available that would allow me to adequately house myself and my cats and pay bills PLUS pay my moving costs. Unfortunately, I can't even afford a trip to SD or LA to see friends. I had to call off a trip to test for a job in Barstow. Previously, I wouldn't have made payment of moving costs a requirement, but now I have no choice....

Stop the excuses.

"Adequately" house you and your cats? And previously you wouldn't have made moving costs a part of your compensation demands, but now, when times are even more desperate, you will UP your demands? And you can't afford a trip to SD or LA to see your friends? What the hell are you even thinking about taking a trip when you should be saving all of your money and devoting all of your time to getting a job?

And what are you doing to get a job, answering ads in a newspaper? What time have you spent volunteering? What time have you spent asking people what you can do to help them? How well do you know your neighbors...what have you done to convince them you are worthy of hiring? What time have you spent networking with actual people face to face...not on the internet? You cancelled a job interview/test...it could not have been a serious job...if it was, that was just dumb.

And who are you to say that it is bad for a company to want to hire people who have jobs rather than people who are unemployed? Despite your claims, there are plenty of jobs out there...you just don't want them. You'd rather sit on your end and collect unemployment. THAT is exactly why I would not hire you. And that is the reason a lot of other companies won't hire you or other unemployed people.

I want to hire people who have drive and a desire to succeed...and that means taking a job...ANY JOB...for a short time. That shows me someone is willing to do what it takes. I certainly don't want to hire some clown who thinks he/she has some sort of entitlement that allows him/her to sit on his/her ass and collect unemployment ad infinitum (seriously, WTF are you thinking) or one who complains that they can't interrupt their job search to take a trip to another town to see friends.

[kalm]

That's one theory, but FDR's policies carried us for the next 4 decades without a major recession. They must have been terrible, just like free money by virtue of low marginal tax rates and financial degregualion don't create bubbles.

And FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act of slaughtering over 6 million hogs and burning farmers crops in the fields didn't cause food shortages and make thousands of Americans to go bed hungry night after night, either. This is only one example of dozens, but it gives you a good idea how idiotic many of FDR's so-called "policies" were.

Oh and BTW, the US went through no less than 5 recessions from the start of FDR's reign until 1960, and two of those are classified as "major". Sorry....

Finally, you didn't answer the question. What happened before Harding took office? I'll give you a little hint. It happened in 1920.

Hey, if you think FDR killing pigs is a good example of tax policy, you go with that.

As for the 5 "major" recessions of the New Deal Era, I suppose it depends on what your definition of major is. But if I grant you those, will you grant me the two recessions that occurred 2 and 4 years after Hardings tax cuts or that we spent 1/3 of the Roaring 20's in a recession?

BTW, did Hardings tax cuts occur before or after the recovery from the '20-'21 recession had already started?

The coincidence between new conk talking points and the Beck/Limbaugh show is amazing.

Presimetrics: How Democratic and Republican Administrations Measure Up on the Issues We Care Aboutby Mike Kimel (Cactus), Michael E. Kanell, and Nigel Holmes (Illustrator) (Hardcover - Aug. 11, 2010)
The 1920s Depression: Glenn Beck, Thomas Woods, and "Benefits" of Cutting Taxes to Combat a Recession, Part 1
Posted by Rdan | 4/15/2010 05:17:00 AM 97 comments by cactus

The 1920s Depression: Glenn Beck, Thomas Woods, and "Benefits" of Cutting Taxes to Combat a Recession, Part 1

So I get an e-mail from reader Dean Moriarty, stating:



Yesterday, I found myself in the sad position of inadvertantly listening to the Glenn Beck show. He was talking to some caller about how American history classes never want to talk about the 1920 Depression, because it is a matter that somehow completely undermines everything we are taught about how "the New Deal was a miracle and totally saved America from the Great Depression." Aside from the straw man he made about the New Deal, I was still curious why he felt that the government response to the 1920 Depression was such a trenchant rebuttal of any kind of left-leaning economic philosophy.

Basically, the claim is made that it was a cut in government spending, tax cuts, laissez-faire ecomomic policy, and inaction on the Federal Reserve that solved the problem.

Dean goes on to point out that Beck claims to get many of these ideas from a dude called Thomas Woods, who is a senior fellow with the very libertarian Mises Institute. The guy has written a few books and gotten a few awards from assorted libertarian organizations, so he's something of a prominent chap int those circles.

Woods' position on the 1920s can be found here. Its even got footnotes so you just know its authoritative. Anyway, read the whole thing if you'd like, but what Woods is arguing is this:


According to the endlessly repeated conventional wisdom, the Great Depression of the 1930s was the result of capitalism run riot, and only the wise interventions of progressive politicians restored prosperity. Many of those who concede that the New Deal programs alone did not succeed in lifting the country out of depression nevertheless go on to suggest that the massive government spending during World War II is what did it.1 (Even some nominal free-marketeers make the latter claim, which hands the entire theoretical argument to supporters of fiscal stimulus.)
The connection between this version of history and the events of today is obvious enough: once again, it is claimed, wildcat capitalism has created a terrific mess, and once again, only a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus can save us.


In order to make sure that this version of events sticks, little, if any, public mention is ever made of the depression of 1920–21. And no wonder: that historical experience deflates the ambitions of those who promise us political solutions to the real imbalances at the heart of economic busts. The conventional wisdom holds that in the absence of government countercyclical policy, whether fiscal or monetary (or both), we cannot expect economic recovery—at least, not without an intolerably long delay. Yet the very opposite policies were followed during the depression of 1920–21, and recovery was in fact not long in coming.

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. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.” 2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

The article goes on providing support for the idea that a) the gubmint stayed the heck out of the economy and b) the economy recovered swimmingly. It ends with this:


The experience of 1920–21 reinforces the contention of genuine free-market economists that government intervention is a hindrance to economic recovery. It is not in spite of the absence of fiscal and monetary stimulus that the economy recovered from the 1920–21 depression. It is because those things were avoided that recovery came. The next time we are solemnly warned to recall the lessons of history lest our economy deteriorate still further, we ought to refer to this episode—and observe how hastily our interrogators try to change the subject.

I read this, and to me its poison - it sounds reasonable, but is off just enough to be completely misleading. And it seems to me to be more than just purposely deceitful. See, influential people, whether they also think its deceitful or not, use these arguments. And that makes them dangerous. To me, dealing with this sort of thing is unpleasant. And I'm wasting my Sunday on something unpleasant only because I think its important. So before I lay into this let me explain the result of this post. I am going to lay out some arguments. They will state that Woods is wrong. My statements will contradict his in such a way that the difference between us will not be one of opinion. It will be one of facts and the use of facts. And I believe that at the end, there will be only four options. These are:
1. I am making up substantially all of my facts in a willfully deceitful way... and one would have to be crazy to take me seriously on anything
2. I am mistaken to the point of being delusional... and one would have to be crazy to take me seriously on anything
3. Woods is making up substantially all of his facts in a willfully deceitful way... and one would have to be crazy to take him seriously on anything
4. Woods is mistaken to the point of being delusional... and one would have to be crazy to take him seriously on anything

So with that, I'm going to start with what what normally might be a big deal, but in this case amounts to a minor quibble. And that quibble is that Woods uses made up data and doesn't let on that the data he's using is not the real thing. This may not be data he made up, mind you, and it may go by but its made up nevertheless.

For example, when Woods tells you that "unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent" in 1920 (presumably he means the unemployment rate) or that the " unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923" Woods is using somebody's estimate of the unemployment rate. But if you head on over the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website, and look around for historical figures, they'll give you data going back to 1940 and no further. Spend a bit more time on the BLS site poking around and you might find an FAQ entitled "How the Government Measures Unemployment" which states:



Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project.

We can get into a quibble about the establishment survey and its precursors, but suffice it to say, whatever data Woods is using is an estimate someone probably produced long, long after the fact. Similarly, Woods tells us in 1920 "GNP declined 17 percent." And once again, the question is, where is this data supposed to come from? Because when someone says "GNP" the natural assumption by someone with some familiarity with the data is that it originates with the Bureau of Economic Analysis' National Income and Product Account Tables. And those tables only go back to 1929. Simon Kuznets wasn't producing estimates before that.


Where does his data come from? No idea. Maybe he got it from Glenn Beck for all I know. But I have a hard time taking estimates produced decades after the fact seriously if I don't know how it was done or by who. And when the person using those figures either doesn't know or doesn't tell you who made the data he's using or how, it really gets suspect. But like I said earlier, for where we're going, this is just a quibble.


So let's quit the quibbles and get into his argument, namely that our Hero, Warren G. Harding, went all slash-and-burn on them vile tax rates starting in 1920, the Federal Reserve did nothing, and this led to a robust recovery, unlike, say, what tax hikes and gubmint meddling did to the Great Depression. Here's how he puts it:



Not surprisingly, many modern economists who have studied the depression of 1920–21 have been unable to explain how the recovery could have been so swift and sweeping even though the federal government and the Federal Reserve refrained from employing any of the macroeconomic tools—public works spending, government deficits, inflationary monetary policy—that conventional wisdom now recommends as the solution to economic slowdowns. The Keynesian economist Robert A. Gordon admitted that “government policy to moderate the depression and speed recovery was minimal. The Federal Reserve authorities were largely passive. . . . Despite the absence of a stimulative government policy, however, recovery was not long delayed.”5 Another economic historian briskly conceded that “the economy rebounded quickly from the 1920–21 depression and entered a period of quite vigorous growth” but chose not to comment further on this development.6 “This was 1921,” writes the condescending Kenneth Weiher, “long before the concept of countercyclical policy was accepted or even understood.” 7 They may not have “understood” countercyclical policy, but recovery came anyway—and quickly.

So let's look at a picture that both shows what happened to tax rates and illustrates the extent of the rapid recovery. Below, I've graphed the top marginal income tax rate (data from the IRS), and the gray shaded areas are the periods the economy was in recession information from the NBER) for the period from 1920 to 1940.








Let's start with the timing of the recovery. Unless I'm missing something, the tax cuts came after the end of the recession. That is to say, the recovery preceded the tax cuts by half of a year. Now, Woods is very precise... he says tax rates were slashed between 1920 and 1922. I for one was left with the impression that tax rates were slashed in 1921 as well as 1922, but he never quite said that. So its right, but misleading. (Its the fact that he writes so precisely about timing that leads me to believe this is not a mistake on his part, but rather that he knows what he's doing.) But then why are the tax cuts in 1922 being given credit for a recovery that had already begun half a year earlier? Woods quotes some dude called Anderson who in turn writes:


The rally in business production and employment that started in August 1921

Again... rapid recovery in 1921, tax cuts in 1922. Anyone see the problem with this? If Woods doesn't, I have a bridge I'd be happy to sell him... in New York City in 1402. Unless, of course, we're supposed to infer the classic libertarian view, which is that everyone knew a tax cut was coming and acted on the fact, Of course, anyone who was gonna act on tax cuts in August of '21 ahead probably would have acted on them in November of '20... when Harding was elected. As I understand it, Harding didn't exactly make a secret about what he intended to do. Part of the The Return to Normalcy campaign he ran on included a rejection of Wilson's active government.

But once more back to this quote:


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.

Again, one more thing slightly misleading (at least to me) but technically correct. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups, but not in 1920 or 1921 or 1922. Check the IRS link again... the folks at the bottom only got their tax cut later, in 1923. (One can see very clearly why Reagan admired Harding.) And Woods doesn't quite say that all income groups had their tax rates slashed between 1920 and 1922, does he?

But we still haven't even touched the bigger problem the graph shows. To most people, "rapid recovery" does not mean "a recovery that burns out quickly, leaving behind another recession less than 2 years later." But that is, indeed, what happened. Call that recession "Recession # 2." Interestingly enough, Recession #2 didn't end until after a tax hike, which makes for a delicious detail given what Woods writes. Following the end of Recession #2, taxes are cut again. (I imagine that Woods must be thinking he can credit tax cuts for retroactively ending that recession too. Also, that buying a bridge in New York City in 1402 would allow him to charge Moses a hefty toll when he rides across on a dinosaur.)

OK... so there's a tax cut, and that leads to another rapid(ly ending) recovery - Recession 3 comes around about 2 years later, in October of '26. That recession ended in November of '27. And we know what came next, right? Another rapid(ly ending) recovery (21 month long) with a tax cut!!! And this time what follows is a doozy - the Great Depression itself.

Note... for comparison with the policies Woods is happy about, I continued the graph through 1940. Take a gander at the period from 1933 to 1940, when that commie pinko Roosevelt was in office. I wonder if Woods would say the tax hikes Roosevelt instituted are the reason there were no rapid(ly ending) recoveries in the 1930s.

So let me recap, but using a bit different phrasing than Woods might use. Starting with Harding, Republican administrations repeatedly cut taxes in the 1920s. Recessions came fast and furious; in the 96 months between the end of the 1920 Depression and the start of Great Depression that followed this tax cutting bonanza, the economy was in recession 30% of the time.

To be honest, this doesn't strike me as a good argument for cutting taxes, but then maybe that's why no libertarian organization would ever contemplate giving me a prize.

Which leads me to my next graph... or maybe not. I haven't even gotten to my best material, but this post is getting a bit long. Expect part 2 next week. I'll be taking my gloves off.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/04/19 ... homas.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

Hey, if you think FDR killing pigs is a good example of tax policy, you go with that.

As for the 5 "major" recessions of the New Deal Era, I suppose it depends on what your definition of major is. But if I grant you those, will you grant me the two recessions that occurred 2 and 4 years after Hardings tax cuts or that we spent 1/3 of the Roaring 20's in a recession?

BTW, did Hardings tax cuts occur before or after the recovery from the '20-'21 recession had already started?

The coincidence between new conk talking points and the Beck/Limbaugh show is amazing.

Sorry, you're the one who claimed, "FDR's policies carried us for the next 4 decades without a major recession". I pointed out just one of his idiotic policies. Now you want to change it to FDR's tax policies? Fine by me, but do you really want to lose another argument?

Reading is fundamental...I said there were 5 recessions from the start of FDR's reign until 1960. Of those 5 two were major (1937 & 1946). Sure, there were 2 very minor recessions in the 1920's, but overall the US economy was booming during that period. We moved out of the quagmire of the Progressive Era of bloated federal budgets and the DEPRESSION it ushered in during 1920 by cutting federal expenditures by over half and lowering the burden put on job creators by dropping their tax rates from 73% to 25%.

The initial tax cuts passed during the recovery process, but it goes much deeper than that. During the presidential campaign, one of Harding's main platforms was major tax cuts while Cox wanted to continue Wilson's ill advised policies. The result...Harding beat Cox in the most lopsided presidential election in history. The business climate in the US improved overnight and the emerging industries began to reinvest in their businesses.

If you think quoting some no name dudes blog helps your argument, be my guest.

[SDHornet]

Cluck I have to disagree with a caveat. If I were to lose my job I'd look at my bottom line. And if collecting unemployment benefits (which I and every working person has been paying into through taxes) helps my bottom line then I by no means take a job that PAYS LESS than unemployment. As sad and crappie as that is, it all comes down to the bottom line. It is definitely a lose - lose situation but turning away more money than what can be found by "finding any job" wouldn't be a smart financial decision.

Now the extensions of unemployment are something I don't agree with and is another issue.

[JohnStOnge]

In a related matter, today I once again heard a politician (Obama) refer to tax "breaks" as "spending." This has got to stop. Government allowing someone to keep their own money is not "spending." Tax cuts and tax "breaks" may result in revenue reduction. Or they may not. But in any case a revenue reduction is not spending.

We should immediately vote any politician who refers to tax cuts or "breaks" as "spending" out of office. Such an outlook reflects a very dangerous mentality. It implies that government owns everything and that whatever you keep is something you keep only because government gives it to you. I think Bill Clinton started this crap. Again, it's got to stop.

[CitadelGrad]

It makes perfect sense from their perspective. What belongs to the government belongs to the government. What belongs to the people also belongs to the government.

[BDKJMU]

Cluck I have to disagree with a caveat. If I were to lose my job I'd look at my bottom line. And if collecting unemployment benefits (which I and every working person has been paying into through taxes) helps my bottom line then I by no means take a job that PAYS LESS than unemployment. As sad and crappie as that is, it all comes down to the bottom line. It is definitely a lose - lose situation but turning away more money than what can be found by "finding any job" wouldn't be a smart financial decision.

Now the extensions of unemployment are something I don't agree with and is another issue.

Huh???? Your previous posts you argued for extending unemployment. Now you're now saying you don't agree with the extensions of unemployment. You earlier posted:

Just saying: "Go get a job" is WAY too simplistic nowadays. As much as I as a conservative hate to admit it, unemployment benefits extended ad infinitum are a freaking NECESSITY. Not everyone on extended unemployment is trying to jerk the system.

Don't know how many years you have worked full time, but what you and your employers have paid in unemployment taxes is probably only enough to cover a few weeks to a few months of unemployment bennies. So unless you've been working full time for at least half a century, you haven't paid enough to cover 99 weeks of unemployment. Same goes for everone else. Yet you want people to be able to stay on unemployment longer than 99 weeks, AD INFINITUM You might call yourself a Republican, but you're certainly no fiscal conservative.

[SuperHornet]

JMU: I worked 12 years full-time (with 5 years part-time) under conditions where weekends and 24-hours on-call were a given. Until the last three years, I had never had an issue.

Cluck: The trip in question was for a job test out of the area. It's dumb to cancel a trip for want of gas money? And believe you me, if an offer comes equal to or greater than what unemployment gives, I'll take that in a heartbeat. Smearing ALL unemployed people as slackers, particularly those in areas where jobs are less available than others (our county alone is over 12% unemployed, MUCH higher than the national average) is disingenuous to say the least. People will not hire someone who has not been trained for their job, so applying for jobs outside of what one has trained in is stupid. Keep in mind that unemployment benefits are NOT welfare; in fact, people on unemployment generally do NOT qualify for welfare. I should know, I tried on the advice others. There are things I wouldn't vote for in terms of government spending, but one DOES have to do what is practical to some degree.

[kalm]

Sorry, you're the one who claimed, "FDR's policies carried us for the next 4 decades without a major recession". I pointed out just one of his idiotic policies. Now you want to change it to FDR's tax policies? Fine by me, but do you really want to lose another argument?

Reading is fundamental...I said there were 5 recessions from the start of FDR's reign until 1960. Of those 5 two were major (1937 & 1946). Sure, there were 2 very minor recessions in the 1920's, but overall the US economy was booming during that period. We moved out of the quagmire of the Progressive Era of bloated federal budgets and the DEPRESSION it ushered in during 1920 by cutting federal expenditures by over half and lowering the burden put on job creators by dropping their tax rates from 73% to 25%.

And created a bubble just like the the other times during the past century that taxes have been signifcantly cut. You also fail to acknowledge the coincidence of economic downturns in post war periods.

Regardless, the tax cuts of the 20's produced a decade of unsustainable growth, with two recession mixed in, and a giant bubble bursting in the end. Roosevelt's policies produced a longer more sustained period of growth and the rise of the strongest middle class in the history of the world.

But you're right, you did initially say only two of the five recessions following WWII were major. My bad.

[native]

Cluck I have to disagree with a caveat. If I were to lose my job I'd look at my bottom line. And if collecting unemployment benefits (which I and every working person has been paying into through taxes) helps my bottom line then I by no means take a job that PAYS LESS than unemployment. As sad and crappie as that is, it all comes down to the bottom line. It is definitely a lose - lose situation but turning away more money than what can be found by "finding any job" wouldn't be a smart financial decision.

Now the extensions of unemployment are something I don't agree with and is another issue.

I agree with you, Hornet, that we all have to play by the rules of the game. I do not blame you or anyone else for taking all the unemployment money legally allowed.

But I also agree with those who say that overgenerous benefits are counterproductive and provide the wrong incentives. I see it in my own family members who take the easy way instead of cutting back sufficiently on life style and looking full time for work. The rules of the game are in dire need of reform.

Obama's social democracy must be destroyed if everyone is not to be lowered to the lowest common denominator.

Trickle down wealth may suck, but trickle up poverty sucks a lot worse, and for a lot more people!

[Baldy]

And created a bubble just like the the other times during the past century that taxes have been signifcantly cut. You also fail to acknowledge the coincidence of economic downturns in post war periods.

Regardless, the tax cuts of the 20's produced a decade of unsustainable growth, with two recession mixed in, and a giant bubble bursting in the end. Roosevelt's policies produced a longer more sustained period of growth and the rise of the strongest middle class in the history of the world.

But you're right, you did initially say only two of the five recessions following WWII were major. My bad.

Unsustainable growth?
Please, I can't wait to hear your definition of what it is.

Seems you don't actually know the root cause of the Depression. I'll give you a hint, it was the Federal Reserves fault, but there certainly was no "bubble".
As noted earlier, Roosevelt's policies turned a depression into The Great Depression. Those policies turned 4% unemployment into 30% unemployment, the burgeoning middle class into vagabonds, Americas breadbasket into food shortages, and the most powerful economy into one a world into a third world country would be ashamed of...

Congratulations, commondreams, salon, dailykos and those other "progressive" websites you like to frequent have successfully duped you.

[kalm]

And created a bubble just like the the other times during the past century that taxes have been signifcantly cut. You also fail to acknowledge the coincidence of economic downturns in post war periods.

Regardless, the tax cuts of the 20's produced a decade of unsustainable growth, with two recession mixed in, and a giant bubble bursting in the end. Roosevelt's policies produced a longer more sustained period of growth and the rise of the strongest middle class in the history of the world.

But you're right, you did initially say only two of the five recessions following WWII were major. My bad.

Unsustainable growth?
Please, I can't wait to hear your definition of what it is.

Seems you don't actually know the root cause of the Depression. I'll give you a hint, it was the Federal Reserves fault, but there certainly was no "bubble".
As noted earlier, Roosevelt's policies turned a depression into The Great Depression. Those policies turned 4% unemployment into 30% unemployment, the burgeoning middle class into vagabonds, Americas breadbasket into food shortages, and the most powerful economy into one a world into a third world country would be ashamed of...

Congratulations, commondreams, salon, dailykos and those other "progressive" websites you like to frequent have successfully duped you.

Unemployment peaked at 25% 1933 - the first year Roosevelt was in office. So you had 13 years of laissez-faire economics - well, not really since Harding was already starting down a Keynesian path as shit began to really hit the fan. But let's say at least 8 years. Perhaps it just wasn't enough time.

1920s (Decade)

During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors of the economy.

An average of 600 banks fail each year.

Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually decline.

The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.

Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.

"Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery.

Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.

Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Regardless, the tax cuts of the 20's produced a decade of unsustainable growth, with two recession mixed in, and a giant bubble bursting in the end. Roosevelt's policies produced a longer more sustained period of growth and the rise of the strongest middle class in the history of the world.

Uh no, it was this thing called World War II that did that.

[kalm]

Regardless, the tax cuts of the 20's produced a decade of unsustainable growth, with two recession mixed in, and a giant bubble bursting in the end. Roosevelt's policies produced a longer more sustained period of growth and the rise of the strongest middle class in the history of the world.

Uh no, it was this thing called World War II that did that.

Yes, increased industrial capacity and lack of competition helped, but these were somewhat offset by how much we actually spent on the war, invested in reconstructing Europe, and occupying both Europe and Japan.

Besides I'm talking about the investments we made in real and human infrastructure plus the banking regulations which provided stability.

[Baldy]

Unemployment peaked at 25% 1933 - the first year Roosevelt was in office. So you had 13 years of laissez-faire economics - well, not really since Harding was already starting down a Keynesian path as **** began to really hit the fan. But let's say at least 8 years. Perhaps it just wasn't enough time.

Really? When did Harding go all Keynesian because he died in 1923, and Keynes didn't publish The Means to Prosperity until 10 years later.

The truth is Hoover started down a Keynesian type path, and unfortunately, Roosevelt jumped off the deep end.
You are under the incorrect assumption that free market capitalism was the culprit and cause of the depression. I guess I would be that misinformed too if I read Paul Krugman, salon, and commondreams.

Do yourself a favor and research the Federal Reserve and its role as the cause of the depression. You will learn so much.

1920s (Decade)

During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors of the economy.

An average of 600 banks fail each year.

Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually decline.

The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.

Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.

"Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery.

Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.

Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Awesome example of "Progressive" revisionist history.

[SDHornet]

Huh???? Your previous posts you argued for extending unemployment. Now you're now saying you don't agree with the extensions of unemployment. You earlier posted:
...

I think you got me and SH mixed up.

[SDHornet]

Cluck I have to disagree with a caveat. If I were to lose my job I'd look at my bottom line. And if collecting unemployment benefits (which I and every working person has been paying into through taxes) helps my bottom line then I by no means take a job that PAYS LESS than unemployment. As sad and crappie as that is, it all comes down to the bottom line. It is definitely a lose - lose situation but turning away more money than what can be found by "finding any job" wouldn't be a smart financial decision.

Now the extensions of unemployment are something I don't agree with and is another issue.

I agree with you, Hornet, that we all have to play by the rules of the game. I do not blame you or anyne else for taking all the unemployment money legally allowed.

But I also agree with those who say that overgenerous benefits are counterproductive and provide the wrong incentives. I see it in my own family members who take the easy way instead of cutting back sufficiently on life style and looking full time for work. The rules of the game are in dire need of reform.

Obama's social democracy must be destroyed if everyone is not to be lowered to the lowest common denominator.

Trickle down wealth may suck, but trickle up poverty sucks a lot worse, and for a lot more people!

I agree. At some point the unemployment extensions will have to stop and people will have to find a way to survive without the gov supporting them. The constant extensions of unemployment is not sustainable.

[GannonFan]

Typical partisan rancor from both parties on this. The GOP, after years of not worrying about the deficit, now wants the unemployment benefits to be paid for. And the Dems are just as bad, saying on one hand that unemployment benefits are stimulative, but then somehow resisting the idea to pay for the extension by using the $400B or so in unspent stimulus funds. At the end of the day, both parties are simply using the issue to score political points in the hopes of electoral wins. Whether it helps anyone at the end of the day is apparently unimportant.

[NG33]

At the end of the day, both parties are simply using the issue to score political points in the hopes of electoral wins. Whether it helps anyone at the end of the day is apparently unimportant.

QFT

Both sides want to be portrayed as the "Heros". Whether or not it does help.. meh, minor details...

[Chizzang]

Cluck I have to disagree with a caveat. If I were to lose my job I'd look at my bottom line. And if collecting unemployment benefits (which I and every working person has been paying into through taxes) helps my bottom line then I by no means take a job that PAYS LESS than unemployment. As sad and crappie as that is, it all comes down to the bottom line. It is definitely a lose - lose situation but turning away more money than what can be found by "finding any job" wouldn't be a smart financial decision.

Now the extensions of unemployment are something I don't agree with and is another issue.

I agree with you, Hornet, that we all have to play by the rules of the game. I do not blame you or anyne else for taking all the unemployment money legally allowed.

But I also agree with those who say that overgenerous benefits are counterproductive and provide the wrong incentives. I see it in my own family members who take the easy way instead of cutting back sufficiently on life style and looking full time for work. The rules of the game are in dire need of reform.

Obama's social democracy must be destroyed if everyone is not to be lowered to the lowest common denominator.

Trickle down wealth may suck, but trickle up poverty sucks a lot worse, and for a lot more people!

I agree with pretty much your entire post...
If we're going to "pay into it" a person ought to be able to "withdraw it"

That said: Living on unemployment is really sad and non-productive BUT
What do we do if their really aren't jobs for these people...

[kalm]

Unemployment peaked at 25% 1933 - the first year Roosevelt was in office. So you had 13 years of laissez-faire economics - well, not really since Harding was already starting down a Keynesian path as **** began to really hit the fan. But let's say at least 8 years. Perhaps it just wasn't enough time.

Really? When did Harding go all Keynesian because he died in 1923, and Keynes didn't publish The Means to Prosperity until 10 years later.

The truth is Hoover started down a Keynesian type path, and unfortunately, Roosevelt jumped off the deep end.
You are under the incorrect assumption that free market capitalism was the culprit and cause of the depression. I guess I would be that misinformed too if I read Paul Krugman, salon, and commondreams.

Do yourself a favor and research the Federal Reserve and its role as the cause of the depression. You will learn so much.

1920s (Decade)

During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors of the economy.

An average of 600 banks fail each year.

Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually decline.

The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.

Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.

"Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery.

Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.

Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Awesome example of "Progressive" revisionist history.

Yeah, I meant Hoover, and it was Keynesian type approach but I'm guessing your smart enough to know what I meant.

Was the Federal Reserve the cause of the Great Depression? Debateable. Was it the main cause? Perhaps. Was it one of many causes? Likely. It's very similar to those who think Freddie and Fannie caused the current mess. They were a factor but not the one cause.

What's important is that these type of theories fit your thinking politically. They affirm your devotion and faith to the God of free market neo-feudalism.

As for the progressive revionist history, I suppose you've read the 50 some cited references that followed the list. Those facts appear to be fairly well researched.

But you can continue to dismiss facts and references all you want if it helps you make you think you've actually one an argument.

[youngterrier]

Really? When did Harding go all Keynesian because he died in 1923, and Keynes didn't publish The Means to Prosperity until 10 years later.

The truth is Hoover started down a Keynesian type path, and unfortunately, Roosevelt jumped off the deep end.
You are under the incorrect assumption that free market capitalism was the culprit and cause of the depression. I guess I would be that misinformed too if I read Paul Krugman, salon, and commondreams.

Do yourself a favor and research the Federal Reserve and its role as the cause of the depression. You will learn so much.



Awesome example of "Progressive" revisionist history.

Yeah, I meant Hoover, and it was Keynesian type approach but I'm guessing your smart enough to know what I meant.

Was the Federal Reserve the cause of the Great Depression? Debateable. Was it the main cause? Perhaps. Was it one of many causes? Likely. It's very similar to those who think Freddie and Fannie caused the current mess. They were a factor but not the one cause.

What's important is that these type of theories fit your thinking politically. They affirm your devotion and faith to the God of free market neo-feudalism.

As for the progressive revionist history, I suppose you've read the 50 some cited references that followed the list. Those facts appear to be fairly well researched.

But you can continue to dismiss facts and references all you want if it helps you make you think you've actually one an argument.

I love how you keep using this term when ironically the results of your progressive agenda will result in such economy more so than a free market....

[kalm]

Yeah, I meant Hoover, and it was Keynesian type approach but I'm guessing your smart enough to know what I meant.

Was the Federal Reserve the cause of the Great Depression? Debateable. Was it the main cause? Perhaps. Was it one of many causes? Likely. It's very similar to those who think Freddie and Fannie caused the current mess. They were a factor but not the one cause.

What's important is that these type of theories fit your thinking politically. They affirm your devotion and faith to the God of free market neo-feudalism.

As for the progressive revionist history, I suppose you've read the 50 some cited references that followed the list. Those facts appear to be fairly well researched.

But you can continue to dismiss facts and references all you want if it helps you make you think you've actually one an argument.

I love how you keep using this term when ironically the results of your progressive agenda will result in such economy more so than a free market....

My agenda is to argue politics.

Both ideological extremes can lead to a reduction in liberty and a wealth gap. Or do you really think the aristocracy in feudal europe were a bunch of collectivists?

I believe in a strong middle class. Partly because that's where I was raised, partly because those are my current customers, and mostly because that is what's best for the country and my children's future. We have gone through one of the most extended periods of financial deregulation, low taxes, supply side economics in the history of our country. We have swung wildly toward the "free market" side of the ideological coin. How is the middle class doing?