Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1 Hoover caused our first Great Depression - Bush caused the Second 
    Senior Member aka:PBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    saco,maine
    Posts
    547
    ThomWV (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-17-11 08:30 AM
    Original message
    Hoover caused our first Great Depression - Bush caused the Second
    Don't forget it.
    http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=439x1507456

    Hmmmmmmm we were in or are in a depression? Never knew that.
    Lets just paint some happy clouds over at the sunshine and lollipop land
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,025
    Roosevelt caused the depression of the thirties. After he won the election in November '32, Hoover pleaded with Roosevelt to persuade his Democrat party in the Congress to close the banks to prevent a run. Roosevelt refused. After Roosevelt was inaugurated in March '33, he closed the banks with the Emergency Banking Relief Act.

    It's history. Read it. Teach it. It took WW2 to end the Great Depression that was unnecessarily extended by Roosevelt's socialist politics.

    BTW, I was born in '38.

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member aka:PBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    saco,maine
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by marv View Post
    Roosevelt caused the depression of the thirties. After he won the election in November '32, Hoover pleaded with Roosevelt to persuade his Democrat party in the Congress to close the banks to prevent a run. Roosevelt refused. After Roosevelt was inaugurated in March '33, he closed the banks with the Emergency Banking Relief Act.

    It's history. Read it. Teach it. It took WW2 to end the Great Depression that was unnecessarily extended by Roosevelt's socialist politics.

    BTW, I was born in '38.
    But the dummies don't want to read it or teach it. They want to actually re-write history to there own liking.
    Lets just paint some happy clouds over at the sunshine and lollipop land
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Dan D. Doty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pevely, Missouri
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by aka:PBS View Post
    But the dummies don't want to read it or teach it. They want to actually re-write history to there own liking.
    They do that every day of their lives; that's why Moombats repeat the same mistakes every generation.
    CU's Paranormal Expert.


    Keep your powder dry, your sword sharp and your wits intact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,912
    How was the economy from 2001-2006? And what happened when the Dems regained control of both houses of congress? Coinkidink? I think not.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Dan D. Doty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pevely, Missouri
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by marv View Post
    Roosevelt caused the depression of the thirties. After he won the election in November '32, Hoover pleaded with Roosevelt to persuade his Democrat party in the Congress to close the banks to prevent a run. Roosevelt refused. After Roosevelt was inaugurated in March '33, he closed the banks with the Emergency Banking Relief Act.

    It's history. Read it. Teach it. It took WW2 to end the Great Depression that was unnecessarily extended by Roosevelt's socialist politics.

    BTW, I was born in '38.
    My Mom was born in '38.

    One of these days Marv, I've got to pay you a vist. :D
    CU's Paranormal Expert.


    Keep your powder dry, your sword sharp and your wits intact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by marv View Post
    It took WW2 to end the Great Depression that was unnecessarily extended by Roosevelt's socialist politics..
    Actually, I would disagree even with that. The problem with saying that WWII ended the Depression is that it doesn't invalidate the New Deal/Keynesian stimulus idea, it just suggests that the stimulus needs to be really big for it to work. From my point of view, the economy was still depressed even in WWII, it was just masqueraded by the government nationalizing everything. I'd argue that what got us out of it was the rollbacks to many of the taxes, price controls, and regulations that Truman did after WWII ended. Also, much of the bad private investment had dried up by then, so there wasn't a need for a recovery period by 1945.

    Paul Samuelson, a noted Keynesian economist, said this in 1943:

    When this war comes to an end, more than one out of every two workers will depend directly or indirectly upon military orders. We shall have some 10 million service men to throw on the labor market. We shall have to face a difficult reconversion period during which current goods cannot be produced and layoffs may be great. Nor will the technical necessity for reconversion necessarily generate much investment outlay in the critical period under discussion whatever its later potentialities. The final conclusion to be drawn from our experience at the end of the last war is inescapable–were the war to end suddenly within the next 6 months, were we again planning to wind up our war effort in the greatest haste, to demobilize our armed forces, to liquidate price controls, to shift from astronomical deficits to even the large deficits of the thirties–then there would be ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.
    Again, this simply enforces the fact that government stimulus isn't needed for a recovery. If the policies of stimulating were correct, then this should have occurred because the fall in government spending would have triggered another recession. But it didn't, and it ended up creating a very strong post-war economy that basically lasted into the early 1970s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan D. Doty View Post
    My Mom was born in '38.

    One of these days Marv, I've got to pay you a vist. :D
    Bring yer fishin' pole 'cause Table Rock Lake is a really good for bass. We got rid of our boat some years ago, but we've got some good friends that own one of the larger resorts down here in Shell Knob, and I'm sure we can get you a good deal. They've got boats to go with the houses/cabins, too.

    ...or maybe November for deer season.

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,025
    Quote Originally Posted by swirling_vortex View Post
    Actually, I would disagree even with that. The problem with saying that WWII ended the Depression is that it doesn't invalidate the New Deal/Keynesian stimulus idea, it just suggests that the stimulus needs to be really big for it to work. From my point of view, the economy was still depressed even in WWII, it was just masqueraded by the government nationalizing everything. I'd argue that what got us out of it was the rollbacks to many of the taxes, price controls, and regulations that Truman did after WWII ended. Also, much of the bad private investment had dried up by then, so there wasn't a need for a recovery period by 1945.

    Paul Samuelson, a noted Keynesian economist, said this in 1943:


    Again, this simply enforces the fact that government stimulus isn't needed for a recovery. If the policies of stimulating were correct, then this should have occurred because the fall in government spending would have triggered another recession. But it didn't, and it ended up creating a very strong post-war economy that basically lasted into the early 1970s.
    The problem is that an economy prospers by the production of goods, especially durable goods, not Keynesian stimulus. I understand the "multiplier effect", but if that's all it takes, i.e., Keynesian stimulus, then nobody would have to make/build anything. We could all stay home and wait for the government to print more paper.


    So "...stimulus needs to be really big for it to work.", but "...government stimulus isn't needed for a recovery..."? There seems to be a disconnect in the context of what you posted.

    Something to think about; the G.I. Bill put a lot of returning soldiers in school and out of the job market, BUT led to one of the greatest inflationary periods in modern history.

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by swirling_vortex View Post
    Actually, I would disagree even with that. The problem with saying that WWII ended the Depression is that it doesn't invalidate the New Deal/Keynesian stimulus idea, it just suggests that the stimulus needs to be really big for it to work. From my point of view, the economy was still depressed even in WWII, it was just masqueraded by the government nationalizing everything. I'd argue that what got us out of it was the rollbacks to many of the taxes, price controls, and regulations that Truman did after WWII ended. Also, much of the bad private investment had dried up by then, so there wasn't a need for a recovery period by 1945.

    Paul Samuelson, a noted Keynesian economist, said this in 1943:


    Again, this simply enforces the fact that government stimulus isn't needed for a recovery. If the policies of stimulating were correct, then this should have occurred because the fall in government spending would have triggered another recession. But it didn't, and it ended up creating a very strong post-war economy that basically lasted into the early 1970s.
    Well, if you say so. I guess that means we shouldn't cut our defense budget, you just admitted that a large defense budget also doubles as a yearly stimulus package. Defending our nation and putting money in the hands of armed forces personnel!? Brilliant!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •