patrick.net

indigenous says

bob2356 says

I'd love to see the economy fucked up like it was under fdr again.

Cherry picking stats I see...

It was called the great depression for a reason, are you saying that it was great?

You are right. You said 10 years under fdr and I only provided 9. Perhaps the missing year of 1942 would tell a totally different story. Perhaps there is a pig out there that can whistle.

Are you saying the bottom of the great depression wasn't winter of 1932-33? After that recovery was slow but steady. I think 8 years of growth out of 10 with 4 years of double digits growth is a fucked up economy any country on earth would be glad to have. Your short term memory problems are getting worse. Here is what you said since you obviously don't remember.

indigenous says

. In fact it is how FDR managed to fuck up the economy for 10 years.

Call it Crazy says

Hmmm, the majority in Congress flipped to the Dems in 2006.... Then, when they had the reins in 2009-2010, they decided to jamb Obamacare up our asses INSTEAD of focusing on fixing the economy and jobs....

It's amazing what a socialist can "see" with his rose colored glasses....

and this is why we are currently here:

Great chart with great information that fully illustrates what happens when revenue/expense information is honestly reported. Starting in 2009 the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were finally no longer allowed to be put "off budget." Also the effects of Medicare Part D starts to kick in. Oh, and the government expenses went up as we had to bail out Wall Street beginning in 2009 so as to rescue them again from another round of Austrian "free market" casino culture. Let's not forget the glorious results of off shoring so many jobs that unemployment insurance increased. It must be merely a coincidence that all of these problems with revenue and expenditures started mainly around 2009. Damn that Obama, he should have known back in 2000-2004 when he has a new Chicago city councilman and a member of the Illinois legislature he had a chance to fix this upcoming problem.

bob2356 says

I think 8 years of growth out of 10 with 4 years of double digits growth is a fucked up economy any country on earth would be glad to have.

So there was no Depression?

Call it Crazy says

See ANY change in the trajectory after 6 years?? Want to take a guess where it will be after his next two years?

Yeah, you're kind of right. If we are still stuck with Bush's massive tax cuts of which 90% of those cuts went to the top 5%, funding two unfunded wars we were purposely lied into with exponentially increasing legacy costs, and if we are stuck with Medicare Part D that strictly prohibits price bidding for Medicare drugs, the trajectory will still be going up.

OH! I get it, I hate Obama and think he really stunk up the joint and allowed more government wide corruption on all levels from the city to the state capitols to the national capitol, just fraud and free for all. So since I don't care for Obama, I'm supposed to defend the Republicans that are bad... because Jindal is white...ish and well... just because!!!

indigenous says

bob2356 says

I think 8 years of growth out of 10 with 4 years of double digits growth is a fucked up economy any country on earth would be glad to have.

So there was no Depression?

Your reading skills are deteriorating faster than your short term memory. Let me refresh you.

bob2356 says

Are you saying the bottom of the great depression wasn't winter of 1932-33?

Yes there was a great depression just like I said. It bottomed in 1932-1933. If you could read a graph you would have seen that. You said fdr fucked up the economy for 10 years from 1932-1933. Are you claiming that double digit rises in the gdp are a fucked up economy? Talk about being a idiological drone.

Oh wait I get it, you will "WIN" yet another argument by throwing out meaningless post after meaningless post while dodging any relevant questions. Just another day on patnet.

bob2356 says

You said fdr fucked up the economy for 10 years from 1932-1933.

Again, why did they call it a depression?

Obama's graph would be similar, would you say he has done a good job?

indigenous says

Again, why did they call it a depression?

Hoover called it the great depression years before fdr took office you supercilious twit. Did the economy grow 8 years out of 10, yes or no?

indigenous says

Obama's graph would be similar, would you say he has done a good job?

You're the one posting praises for obmana's economic performance, not me.

bob2356 says

Did the economy grow 8 years out of 10, yes or no?

Listen you supercilious twit, 40 fucking % of the GDP was government spending. The trouble with graphs is that they do not show context i.e. what an asshole FDR was.

Call it Crazy says

... !!

Crap shacks!!!!

I agree.... interesting article??? If the country survives that long, that is...

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Did the economy grow 8 years out of 10, yes or no?

Listen you supercilious twit, 40 fucking % of the GDP was government spending. The trouble with graphs is that they do not show context i.e. what an asshole FDR was.

Is that as close as you can come to the word yes? Your math still sucks, average government spending as percentage of gdp 1933 to 1939 was 15.4% about half of today. http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html Oh wait I forgot you are using a priori praxeology. It's true because you believe it should be true. Those pesky dry dusty numbers just get in the way all the time don't they?.

Does praxeology work with sexual fantasies too? If I believe I should have slept with penelope cruz does it make sleeping with her true? Was it good for her too? Need a rin consult.

You got the beginnings of a good joke somewhere in there Bob.

Penelope Cruz precedes demand... hmmm... no, that's not it.

Yea I misquoted the 40% came later, but it did go up a lot under FDR:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending

Then there was this:

Hoover started things rolling in the wrong direction and FDR kept it going with what amounted to a dictatorship, with price controls, and other incessant government controls which resulted in regime uncertainty, which caused a clamming up of investment.

Similar to what we have today.

Anyway FDR was absolutely an asshole, not that Hoover wasn't, and your holding up of GDP figures that were contrived by price controls is laughable.

indigenous says

Then there was this:

Hoover started things rolling in the wrong direction and FDR kept it going with what amounted to a dictatorship, with price controls, and other incessant government controls which resulted in regime uncertainty, which caused a clamming up of investment.

Similar to what we have today.

Anyway FDR was absolutely an asshole, not that Hoover wasn't, and your holding up of GDP figures that were contrived by price controls is laughable.

Well I got to say you are certainly giving me the giggles today. So unemployment dropping from 24% to 4% is the sign of a fucked up economy? Pray tell what do you consider an improving economy? So price controls that caused clamming up of investment produced contrived gdp figures rising in double digits? Huh? Even for mises praxeology double speak that set of contradictory thoughts is pretty close to impossible to torture into any kind of workable concept. Ok I'm a little starved for a good laugh at this moment. Explain how clamming up investment results in double digit growth. It must be the magic meme.

bob2356 says

Well I got to say you are certainly giving me the giggles today. So unemployment dropping from 24% to 4% is the sign of a fucked up economy?

Yes conscripting a large portion of the workforce into deadly situations sure fixes the economy, no giggles for me rather laugh out loud.

bob2356 says

Pray tell what do you consider an improving economy?

One where you don't get 400,000 of the population killed would be a start. That is funny stuff.

bob2356 says

So price controls that caused clamming up of investment produced contrived gdp figures rising in double digits?

Not that you will watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/envGgTVOL_4
.
bob2356 says

Explain how clamming up investment results in double digit growth.

Watch the video, or if you continue your willful ignorance suffice to say the numbers were cooked.As in if you take the military spending out of the economy, the economy got worse straight through 1941.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Well I got to say you are certainly giving me the giggles today. So unemployment dropping from 24% to 4% is the sign of a fucked up economy?

Yes conscripting a large portion of the workforce into deadly situations sure fixes the economy, no giggles for me rather laugh out loud.

bob2356 says

Pray tell what do you consider an improving economy?

One where you don't get 400,000 of the population killed would be a start. That is funny stuff.

I knew you would keep throwing out whatever irrelevant shit you could. You forgot your original point fdr fucked up the economy from 1932-1942. I know it's hard but make an attempt to stay on point. So riddle me this, how did 400,000 people get killed in those 10 years?

indigenous says

As in if you take the military spending out of the economy, the economy got worse straight through 1941.

Nope not going to watch. I prefer simple charts to your typical slippery videos with lots of double talk and half facts . Other than WWI military spending was pretty much flat from 1900 until well into 1940 at about 1-3% of gdp. How exactly did 3% of gdp military spending out of 15% of gdp government spending result in double digit growth? By what system of mathematics (praxelogy math 101?) does subtracting 3%military spending from 10 to 12% gdp growth result in a negative number? That's must be a really big tail wagging that dog. Must be nice to live in a fact free world where it's true because I believe it should be true.

I anxiously await the next edition of the great indigenous tap dance. I didn't realize my sunday working at my desk was going to be so entertaining.

bob2356 says

By what system of mathematics (praxelogy math 101?) does subtracting 3%military spending from 10 to 12% gdp growth result in a negative number?

The FDR system, IOW he simply got rid of price discovery. Remember this is the same guy who slaughtered millions of hogs in order to maintain price as this cretin felt he could enforce pricing.

"The NIRA codes established minimum wages for less-skilled and higher-skilled workers alike; employers were told that they must bargain collectively with unions, which were given myriad legislated advantages in the bargaining process, all enforced by the newly-created National Labor Relations Board. All of these policies made labor more expensive. Consequently, as the economic law of demand informs us, the inevitable result had to be less employment."

"Strike activity doubled from 14 million strike days in 1936 to 28 million a year later, and wages rose by about 15 percent in 1937 alone. The union/nonunion wage differential increased from 5 percent in 1933 to 23 percent by 1940. Newly-enacted Social Security payroll and unemployment insurance taxes made employment even more expensive. What all of this means is that during a period of weak or declining derived demand for labor, government policy pushed up the price of labor very significantly, causing employers to purchase less and less of it."

"Strike activity doubled from 14 million strike days in 1936 to 28 million a year later, and wages rose by about 15 percent in 1937 alone. The union/nonunion wage differential increased from 5 percent in 1933 to 23 percent by 1940. Newly-enacted Social Security payroll and unemployment insurance taxes made employment even more expensive. What all of this means is that during a period of weak or declining derived demand for labor, government policy pushed up the price of labor very significantly, causing employers to purchase less and less of it."

"In short, it was capitalism that finally ended the Great Depression, not FDR's hair-brained cartel, wage-increasing, unionizing, and welfare state expanding policies."

https://mises.org/library/new-deal-debunked-again

bob2356 says

So riddle me this, how did 400,000 people get killed in those 10 years?

You were talking about how unemployment went down to 4.2% under FDR. He did it by getting into a war and reducing unemployment by getting 400,000 Americans killed. Which is tantamount to reducing unemployment by executing the unemployed.

bob2356 says

Nope not going to watch.

Of course not it will kill your fairy tale.

bob2356 says

That's must be a really big tail wagging that dog.

Yup and that tail was named FDR

bob2356 says

Other than WWI military spending was pretty much flat from 1900 until well into 1940

yup, the Two-Ocean Navy law and restarting conscription happened after France fell in 1940.

FDR, being ex-Navy, wanted to do more earlier, but Congress said no, IIRC

somebody says

and this is why we are currently here:

is a more honest picture of where we are.

I eliminated the Fed's (and SSTF) holdings in the national debt, and also added consumer debt leverage in red (debt / wages)

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1dJv

Look up the GDP of Chile and compare it to the US GDP, so there is some comparison. Otherwise you are blathering.

Don't know enough about it. Apparently you think it was all about fiscal Policy

Happy Birthday Wogster.

Without studying it more you would appear to be right. But there has to be some context behind that graph. And from what I hear Pinochle was a sucess in the free market, but your graph doesn't show it.

Hayek used to complain angrily about Amnesty International sending him pictures of disappeared college students.

Really, our modern world of neoliberalism is definitely descended from the Mont Pelerin ideologues: Nothing matters but economic freedom.

Drug dealing nazi escapees killing people? Bah, there's no regulation in Chile! It's full of Freedom! Whereas the most token public spending or regulation is totalitarian dictatorship.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

By what system of mathematics (praxelogy math 101?) does subtracting 3%military spending from 10 to 12% gdp growth result in a negative number?

The FDR system, IOW he simply got rid of price discovery. Remember this is the same guy who slaughtered millions of hogs in order to maintain price as this cretin felt he could enforce pricing.

"The NIRA codes established minimum wages for less-skilled and higher-skilled workers alike; employers were told that they must bargain collectively with unions, which were given myriad legislated advantages in the bargaining process, all enforced by the newly-created National Labor Relations Board. All of these policies made labor more expensive. Consequently, as the economic law of demand informs us, the inevitable result had to be less employment."

indigenous says

"Strike activity doubled from 14 million strike days in 1936 to 28 million a year later, and wages rose by about 15 percent in 1937 alone. The union/nonunion wage differential increased from 5 percent in 1933 to 23 percent by 1940. Newly-enacted Social Security payroll and unemployment insurance taxes made employment even more expensive. What all of this means is that during a period of weak or declining derived demand for labor, government policy pushed up the price of labor very significantly, causing employers to purchase less and less of it."

I knew you could master yet one more tap dance. Absolutely nothing here addresses the simple question I asked even with repeating the third paragraph. Great job. Yet another virtuoso performance from the undisputed king of shuffle and duck.

It's really cool how employers purchased less and less labour while the unemployment rate dropped. More praxeology math 101.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

So riddle me this, how did 400,000 people get killed in those 10 years?

You were talking about how unemployment went down to 4.2% under FDR. He did it by getting into a war and reducing unemployment by getting 400,000 Americans killed. Which is tantamount to reducing unemployment by executing the unemployed.

Wow, you are really on a roll today. Delusions r us. Unemployment went from 24.7% when fdr took office to 4.7% by pearl harbor without anyone getting killed in a war. Then you are saying that fdr had to kill 400,000 people in war to get down to 4.2%? That last .5% was really really tough it would appear. My god what would it have taken to get it down to 3%? I shudder t think.

Mises sure is giving his misebots some really really strong kool aid these days.

bob2356 says

It's really cool how employers purchased less and less labour while the unemployment rate dropped. More praxeology math 101.

Since the books were cooked who fucking knows what the real numbers were, but certainly not what you claim.

bob2356 says

Then you are saying that fdr had to kill 400,000 people in war to get down to 4.2%?

No dumb ass, the war machine was going by then and conscription had started in 1940.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

It's really cool how employers purchased less and less labour while the unemployment rate dropped. More praxeology math 101.

Since the books were cooked who fucking knows what the real numbers were, but certainly not what you claim.

You brought it up, now you are saying no one knows what the real numbers are. Great job. So mises.org once again says this is true because I believe it should be true and you parrot it. You just can't make this stuff up. Maybe the real numbers are even better than what is in the government records. Could be you know.

I'm not claiming anything, that's what you are here for. I'm posting official statistics. If you have some valid research (hint mises says so isn't valid research) showing the numbers are wrong feel free to post it. That of course would be an unprecedented event for you so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Then you are saying that fdr had to kill 400,000 people in war to get down to 4.2%?

No dumb ass, the war machine was going by then and conscription had started in 1940.

Wow, conscription started in 1940. How many people did conscription kill before the shooting started 2 years later? Lots of accidents in basic training? You would think FDR could have just stopped at 4.7% unemployment rate at the end of 1941 and no one would have died in war. But no, we had to have that last .5% at all costs. It's really amazing how fdr manipulated the japanese into attacking pearl harbor so he could send 400,000 people to get killed to reduce the unemployment rate that last .5% after reducing it 20% in peacetime. The man was truly a dedicated and machiavellian genius.

bob2356 says

If you have some valid research (hint mises says so isn't valid research) showing the numbers are wrong feel free to post it.

I have yet to see you do anything but carp.

bob2356 says

Wow, conscription started in 1940. How many people did conscription kill before the shooting started 2 years later? Lots of accidents in basic training? You would think FDR could have just stopped at 4.7% unemployment rate at the end of 1941 and no one would have died in war. But no, we had to have that last .5% at all costs. It's really amazing how fdr manipulated the japanese into attacking pearl harbor so he could send 400,000 people to get killed to reduce the unemployment rate that last .5% after reducing it 20% in peacetime. The man was truly a dedicated and machiavellian genius.

No dumb fuck conscription and the war machine lowered the unemployment numbers. If you would bother to watch the video it clearly illustrates how the books were cooked.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S

indigenous says

bob2356 says

If you have some valid research (hint mises says so isn't valid research) showing the numbers are wrong feel free to post it.

I have yet to see you do anything but carp.

Problems with you eyeglass prescription as well as short term memory? I take that as a no, you don't have any kind of valid research to add to the conversation. You really have trouble with the idea of saying yes and no.

indigenous says

No dumb fuck conscription and the war machine lowered the unemployment numbers.

But you said that 400,000 people died to lower the unemployment numbers. Now you say it was conscription. Which indiginous am I to believe? Do you have multiple personality problems?

Military at the end of 1939 was 322,473 with unemployment of 17%. Military at the end of 1940 was 458,365 with unemployment of 14%. The conscription really started mid 1941 with 1,801,101 in the military by the end of the year with unemployment of 10%. So drafting 130,000 people dropped the unemployment rate 3%. Drafting 1 million people dropped the unemployment rate 4%. Praxeology math 101 again. The big military build up wasn't until 1942 when it went to 3,915,407 then to 9,195,912 in 1943.

You manage to totally ignore lend lease and arms sales that skyrocketed in 1940, 1941, 1942 along with the big domestic build up 1942-1945. I will admit you are the master at ignoring any facts that you don't like, but it's pretty tough to ignore billions in lend lease sales. I'm sure you will manage. Gee, I wonder if huge increases in factory outputs, like doubling and tripling every year, those years had anything to do with falling unemployment rates. Ya think?
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Aircraft 245 630 1706 2842 2805
Munitions 140 423 2167 3803 2033
Shipbuilding 159 375 1091 1815 1710
Aluminum 126 189 318 561 474
Rubber 109 144 152 202 206
Steel 131 171 190 202 197

Let's see, the civilian work force increased by 1.5 million in 1940 vs 130,000 military, 2.5 million in 1941 vs 1.8 million military, 4.5 million vs 3 million military in 1942. Gee I wonder where a lot of the unemployed went to? Oh yea I forgot, they were all conscripted.

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.htmlhttp://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_during_World_War_II

Eagerly looking forward to the next spin session. Watching you squirm around makes me want to see singing in the rain with the second best tap dancer in history after you.

bob2356 says

But you said that 400,000 people died to lower the unemployment numbers.

You see where I said the:

bob2356 says

and the war machine

You are the one who has selective hearing malfunction.

The rest of your argument can summed up as ad hominem

You prefer to remain willfully ignorant.

As opposed to the Dangerous Blue State model where they end up like Greece??? Illinois comes to mind.

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the Dangerous Blue State model where they end up like Greece??? Illinois comes to mind.

My theory is that once a red state starts making money they turn into a blue state. Calif for example.

anonymous says

This includes the CCC and WPA ?

Yup

IOW FDR felt he could do away with price discovery and just issue welfare, IOW Keynesian economics.

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the Dangerous Blue State model where they end up like Greece??? Illinois comes to mind.

I'll remind you as well that Illinois has had Republican governors for 26 of the last 38 years. Illinois has some issues, but they're not Dem issue.

indigenous says

The point is that Keynesian economics is a complete failure.

So, on the one had you say war ended the Great Depression, but then you follow that up saying Keynesian economics is a complete failure??

War (in this case) is the definition of Keynesian economics and, by your own statement, you say it ended the Depression. Which is it?

indigenous says

IOW FDR felt he could do away with price discovery and just issue welfare, IOW Keynesian economics

You have absolutely NO clue what Keynesian economics is. None.

tatupu70 says

War is the definition of Keynesian economics

I did not say that

tatupu70 says

you say it ended the Depression

No it masked it

tatupu70 says

You have absolutely NO clue what Keynesian economics is.

It believes all can be handled by fiscal controls.

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

You have absolutely NO clue what Keynesian economics is.

It believes all can be handled by fiscal controls.

Ignorance pithily expressed. At least you're not wasting our time.