Gotcha. So let me simplify your argument:
Tariffs always hurt exports but the two largest economic powers in the world, China and the United States, show exactly the opposite. China has high tariffs and high exports while the United States has low tariffs and low exports.
True or false? If false, explain why this statement is false.
Tee Hee! Some other countries that become industrial superpowers with high tariff rates:
19th century United States
17th-19th Century UK
19th Century France
19th Century - 1970s Germany
20th Century Japan
20th Century Korea
20th Century Malaysia
20th Century China
List of countries that became Industrial superpowers with a low tariff:
Say what? by your own chart the spending doubled from 31 billion to 61 billion. By anybody's perspective that is interventionist.
Huh? Look at the chart more closely. Between 1929 and 1931, the Government only spent a few billion more each year - hardly interventionism. Meanwhile, between 1929 and 1931, the GDP dropped 10%, unemployment rose into the double digits, and thousands of banks failed. .
Her job is to make more Double Dutch-Irish Tax Sandwiches with a little Cayman Islands on top to avoid paying evil taxes.
The point is that Hoover was an interventionist, your graph indicates he doubled spending from 29 to 32.
Wow, he doubled spending of a nation that hardly spent anything in the last year of his term, when unemployment was in the high double digits and after the economy shrank by 10% of GDP. You'll notice that for most of his Presidency, the Government either ran a surplus or teeny tiny deficit. What an interventionist.
Again he was an interventionist here, most economists at that time told him that tariffs were a bad idea and he did it anyway. Free trade is what builds comparative advantage and the world economy, a win win.
And it did nothing. You didn't quote the part where I showed that exports were 5% of GDP, and even in the darkest days of the Depression, went to maybe 3-4% of GDP. YOU have the onus of explaining how a 1-2% drop in export GDP created massive multi-double digit unemployment and thousands of bank failures from that. And how it started almost a year before the Tariff was passed, and why the previous increase in the tariff rate earlier in the 1920s did not cause a similar Depression.
Your graphs on the growth rate of GDP are relevant to what?
To show you how badly Hoover's non-interventionist, "voluntary self-regulation" measures royally failed with 5 stars of epic fail. And how it came roaring back with the New Deal.
It did drop again 37-38, but that's because FDR pulled back hard on Government Spending during that timeframe.
The myth of the "job stealing immigrants"
Austrianism! Increased supply leads to increased demand!
A magic job is created for every immigrant that arrives, poof! by the Market God.
It's amazing that immigration reaches post-War highs, and job creation is at post-War lows, that this is even up for debate.
Thatcher was one of the boys. She drank Scotch neat during meetings, never played the female card, would work until 2AM. She embraced the already existing culture, rather than insist the culture change to accommodate "her needs"
Meagre job creation? Welfare state under pressure? Pay declining?
Nothing that adding to the supply won't fix.
Honestly, arguments that immigrants grow the economy by adding to the labor supply even when demand is flat or declining is the same idea that Austrians believe runs the economy, that supply leads demand.
For example, federal spending increased by almost 50 percent over the two years following the crash (during a period of significant price deflation).
During that same period, the federal budget went from a small surplus to a deficit of approximately 4 percent of GDP.
Hmmm, this is phrased oddly. Surplus in the Budget undefined, then comparing that to a decline by a percentage of GDP. Let's go to the videotape:
You'll see in the first two years of the recession, there was still a government budget surplus or a negligible deficit half to one percent of GDP - unbelievably! It was until 1932, in his last year, that there was a deficit - mostly because RECEIPTS (taxes) collected took a nosedive.
You'll also see that Hoover's voluntary policies resulted in a decline of about 10% of the entire GDP from 1930 to 1932.
The stock market began its meltdown on October 24, 1929. When the crisis hit, Hoover wasted little time putting to work his "proposals to private business and the Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved."
Proposal to Private Business = Voluntary.
On November 19 he met with the presidents of the railroads where he extracted promises from the railroads to increase construction and spending. Two days later he received promises from leading industrialists to expand construction, maintain wage rates, and to shorten the workweek if labor had to be cut. The same day, labor leaders agreed with Hoover's plans, while the next day leaders in the construction industry agreed to maintain wage rates. On November 27, representatives from the public-utility industries agreed to expand construction and to maintain wage rates.
All Voluntary. And I already related this information about his meetings about encouraging industry to self-regulate. They promised, and broke their promises immediately.
This is not government regulation or coercion. This is Hoover asking, not telling, industry to spend more and not layoff.
For example, two days after the stock-market crash, his pet bureau, the Federal Farm Board, announced $150 million in low-interest loans for wheat co-ops and $10 million to set up a centralized marketing board for grain co-ops. More money was added to these programs and more crops incorporated into this policy, but naturally these subsidies only encouraged more production and lower, not higher, prices. Eventually, agricultural prices crashed and the government programs lost millions of dollars.
Hoover campaigned in 1928 to increase loans for farmers; the wasn't a reaction to the Depression. Agricultural Prices had been collapsing throughout the 20s, since Farming had greatly expanded in the US during WW1. After the war, the belligerents, with their young males now out of uniform and back in the workforce, no longer needed mass imports of American Grain at WW1 levels.
In 1930 Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and pushed through other measures in an attempt to improve the unemployment rate, such as banning immigration, increasing deportations, and even issuing propaganda to discourage people from entering the work force. Some might argue that it is unfair to include Smoot-Hawley as a New Deal or progressive policy, but it is included here because, like other such policies, it was designed to "protect" labor and keep wages high. There was also additional public-works money allocated to "stimulate" the economy in 1930.
Ah yes, the other Red Herring.
First bill passed the House in Spring of 1929 BEFORE THE CRASH. The Conference Committee of the House and Senate did not approve until Spring of 1930 AFTER THE CRASH. Hoover did not sign until almost a YEAR AFTER THE CRASH.
Almost TWO THIRDS of all imports were DUTY FREE.
Combining the free and dutiable rate, which deducts tariff revenue from imported goods not subject to tariff rates, the Smoot-Hawley was one of the lowest rates in US History until then, at 19.86%. The Average Free and Dutiable Tariff Rate 1821-1900, most of the 19th Century, was 29.7%
The Free and Dutiable Tariff Rate in 1929 had been 13.5%
Exports were a fraction of US GDP, about 5% in 1928. During the worst year of the Depression, they fell to around 3-4% of GDP. You have to explain how losing 1-2% of GDP from exports led to unemployment north of 30% of the adult working population. Good luck.
People who argue Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression are basically arguing that the 1-2% decline in GDP from declining Exports was entirely due to Smoot-Hawley's 6% increase in the Free and Dutiable Tariff Rate, and it somehow caused massive bank failures and unemployment before the Bill was signed by Hoover or even passed the Committee in mid-1930.
Apologies like to use the "dutiable tariff rate" which doesn't take into account that the majority of imports by dollar value under Smoot-Hawley were totally tariff free.
It should also be pointed out the bill was cleared diplomatically with Canada, the UK, and France before Hoover signed it. No retaliations were promised. However, it wasn't until 1933 that the UK responded with higher tariffs of it's own, and controlled 1/3 of the World at the time. You'll see from the below charts that exports picked up during this "retaliation".
Finally, the US had passed an increase in tariffs previously - the Fordney–McCumber Tariff - in 1922. The result was 7 boom years of GDP growth and not a Great Depression.
GDP Growth Rate
More later. I see a lot of misleading, oddly-phrased passages with a lot of talk, but little in the way of actual comparative numbers.
This one is certainly interesting:
"In fact, real-wage rates at the end of his term were higher than when he began his term in 1929"
The American guys who're hugely into anime, in such an obsessive manner, are basically the stereotypical Dungeons & Dragons dorks of yesteryear. I'd stopped playing D&D after three sessions, as it was an obsessive-compulsive medieval fantasy disorder, and it didn't fit with my active lifestyle of actually being outdoors, when I'm not doing homework inside.
Anime I don't get. I'm not interested in seeing cartoonish waifs attacked sexually by tentacled demons. Doesn't do it for me.
We're talking about Federal Spending.
No, your whole spin off on TANF was about this original quote:
Works for me. We can pay for it by cutting back on food stamps.
His quote was about SNAP, but you chose to go off on some other direction (with incorrect data).
And you quoted the total for TANF, which includes both state and federal spending, when we were talking about federal budgets.
Besides, I'd favor that rule for anywhere, including where I live: Massive daily watering of lawns using desalination is obscene.
I'm entitled to 365-24-7 Kentucky Bluegrass on the lawn of my Semi-Arid Climate home, ASSHOLE!
State spending doesn't count? Is that free money?
We're talking about Federal Spending. Rand Paul and the rest of Congress doesn't pass each of the 50 State Budgets. The Defense Budget, which it's contrasted with, is also Federal Spending.
We spend about 600% more on the Department of War (what it used to be called) than on TANF and SNAP combined, at the Federal level.
Any conversation about budgets that don't begin and end with cutting the largest discretionary item, the military budget, is not serious.
When you cut the family budget, you don't cut the rainy day fund, the groceries, etc. first. You cut out the trips to the Paintball Range.
On this site winning is decided when the 3 aforementioned fade away or they resort to ad hominem.
I sighed before, and I sigh as I say this: Prove that Hoover's interventionism made the Great Depression worse.
Just like Saddam could have sent nukular missiles to obliterate Los Angeles (hmmmmm.....), those crazy Iranian semites can nuke NYC (hmmmm......). Just like Saddam, they must be stopped and their country totally destabilized.
Poor Colin Powell, so Ill used. I mean, it's not like he previously towed the bullshit line by finding nothing happened at Mai Lai in the initial investigation.
Speaking of Nukes, when is Israel going to sign the non-Proliferation Treaty like all the other nuclear powers and allow inspections?
Obama Officials Say Trade Deal Will Not Let Companies Overturn US Laws.
Is that like you get to keep the insurance you have? That there are a billion Chinese customers waiting to buy US Made Goods and help create the High Tech Jobs of the Future(tm)? That No-fault insurance will lower rates?
Of course the TPP will be a disaster, that's why it's secret. Why a trade deal should be secret is beyond me - unless the Powers that Be know that if it's published well ahead of the vote.
Six Pack of Virtual Beer says it'll be fast tracked with less than a few days to read it before the mandatory up or down vote, no amendments allowed.
TANF was $31.6B for the last reported year...
Federal Spending was around $18B.
It is? Really? Try $70B last year...
SNAP is SNAP, and TANF is TANF. TANF is what people mean by "Welfare" and "Food Stamps". SNAP is supplemental aid to working people.
How come the low tax economy, with deregulated financial innovators, has so many people on SNAP?
Actually food money benefits is a pretty big chunk of spending -- $75B/yr now
I was talking TANF, rather than SNAP. But in any case, the proposed increase in military spending would be more than twice, almost three times, total SNAP spending. Just the increase. Take both TANF and SNAP together and the increase is still almost twice both combined.
It started when we built that Dam in Helmond province - in 1954. Rising water table brought a ton of salt to the surface; poppies were one of the few things that would grow.
Mucking about makes it worse.
If u dare to google an item you may wish to purchase in the future, you'll see that exact item on random banner ads on random webpages for about two months.
Yep. And because I look up Convention Equipment for work, all I get is Marketing for Branded Pens, Printed Backdrops, etc. on my Work Computer.
TIVO thought I was a gay Nazi back in the day, because my wife watched Top Model and I watched the History Channel (this was before the Pawn Shop and Antique onslaught)
The Silents are not done living yet. The youths came after them saw the first generational decline in living standards ever in US history, just like Hoover predicted about the eventual outcome of FDR's policies.
That's not what Hoover predicted. Hoover predicted that the Silents would suffer greatly, instead, they were the primary beneficiaries of the New Deal and the immense expansion in the standard of living. The Silents are mostly going, being in their 80s (or 90s), and are the richest segment in America.
Nonsense. You and nobody else counts India as having been a communist country. And show me where any data supports your argument for 70-80%. The peak for communism was probably from the late 70s to just before the collapse of the USSR. In 1980, for example, it was 1.5bn people out of a population of 4.4bn. That's not 70-80%, is it?
Stop with the facts. You are hurting the theory. India, was a Communist Country, whose first President was that Communist Factory Owner and Land Baron, Nehru. Fortunately, we backed the glorious Generals and Terrorists of Pakistan against the Red Threat, and later, the Taliban against Afghanistan. That worked out really well for us, long term.
What specifically would you like to know?
What planet are you living on? Are you really that ignorant about 20th century world history or are you just wilfully ignorant (i.e. lying)?
The first half of the 40's saw the most destructive war in world history: World War Two, with dozens of millions of deaths. Then what followed was 70-80% of the world's population coming under communist rule in the late 40's, 50's and 60's, resulting in 100 million unnatural deaths.
And the post war New Deal Era from 1945-1975 saw the greatest expansion of the ordinary person lifestyle in World History, from the Hunter Gather days to Today. It's not refutable. The standard of living of the median American skyrocketed, during high taxes on the rich, massive government regulation, massive government spending, and interference in Banking, Housing, Transportation, etc.
Not so today, after 30 years of Neoliberal Reforms starting with Reagan. The belated excuse was a demographic crunch and some political crisis in the 70s, which caused temporarily high inflation. While people say the 70s were a recession, we still created > 20 million jobs during the time period. You can't say that for 2000 or so far in the 2010s, under glorious global capitalism unbound.
But don't let irksome facts get in the way of your theory.
TANF is about $18B a year. You'd need to eliminate TANF 10 times over just to cover the already bloated, highest-ever-outside-of-WW2 defense budget increase.
BTW, in AFDC/TANF's heyday in the mind 70s, we had no budget deficit to speak of.
Don't listen to politicians, look at the numbers.