Why did growth happen during WWII?
âThe Depression was actually ended, and prosperity restored, by the sharp reductions in spending, taxes and regulation at the end of World War II , exactly contrary to the analysis of Keynesian so-called economists. True, unemployment did decline at the start of World War II .Nov 30, 2013â
Are you counting the temporary programs as dissolved failures? lol
Your claim was that growth happened during WWII. I asked you why. Posting what happened after WWII doesnât answer that question.
Iâll put it this way: Do you think that maybe the reason the economy benefited was because people were put to work through becoming soldiers and building military stuff? Government spendingâŚ
I didnât isolate or opinion those, what are you talking about? My observation and conclusions were clear.
Did you read the article? It answers your question.
Was there a benefit to war employment and spending? First, benefit to whom? American employees or the national economy? Then, what is success? Too often we may use similar language but assume different meanings.
I donât view success as increasing the US population in an uncontrolled way and dissolving taxpayer dollars by financing the lives of illegal aliens or their children. The illegal aliens receiving the unearned benefits would argue differently. It is success for them that our stance on immigration is so laxadazical. It is a failure to our preexisting population that the tax dollars do not benefit citizens or their posterity more because of the dilution.
They were not clear. Now if you wouldâve listed what programs you counted as dissolved and which ones not, that wouldâve been clear. You didnât do that. Why are you dodging the question? Are you considering temporary programs to be dissolved failures?
I love how you say the economy benefited and then when I respond maybe thatâs because of the government putting people into work by making them soldiers and paying for equipment and suddenly you try to obfuscate. You are a very dishonest person.
First, the context of the conversation was about whether FDR programs continue to run to this day. Second, I also addressed of them all, how many actually succeeded to this day. By default, the temporary programs no longer continue, so they were left out. I didnât measure the success or failure of the temporary programs because they do not apply to the subject of the far sweeping statements made by Monte, which is effectively that Republicans didnât and donât unwind liberal legislation. To the contrary, they do.
The larger context than that was whether government spending can help the economy or not.
Not so fast. For instance, in the Emergency Banking Relief Act, the main point was to solve the problems of the banks at the time by shutting them down, finding the successful ones, and injecting money into them through loans.
Furthermore, I think its disengenuous to say âtemporaryâ programs as if any of them were determined to be temporary or fixed. Not that some werenât, but most legislation is temporary and becomes a staple by virtue of necessity due to lack of approved substitute or it is good enough and finds itself to be multigenerational.
How so? Like in the banking act. The main focus of that was obviously to solve the banking problem at the time. They shut down banks for 4 days. They injected money at the time. They sorted out which banks were successful. I canât even get you to list the programs you count as success and/or failures. You would only have to list the minority that stayed around because then we could infer the majority that dissolved.
The funny thing is that your argument is pretty bad. If a President has 11 major programs last around 100 years, thatâs pretty dang good.
Great, but I disproved his claim that Republicans are inept by virtue of not acting politically when history proves otherwise and I referenced where. You are introducing a broader subject and direct question, which is fine, but itâs not saving the erroneous claims or observations substantiating your friends position(s).
To your question, I answer with âMaybe.â Did it help get us out of the Depression and the Great Recession? It was a contributing factor and Iâm not one to say that utilizing government spending is a bad tactic among an arsenal of solutions. I can tell you that wealth tax and disproportionate taxing ate very bad. Social programs that enable poor health/behavior are counterproductive. And, I have personally designed solutions to various federal problems, almost as a hobby.
A number of my ideas would not be politically well received by contemporary conservatives. For example, I believe that all drugs and gambling should be legalized to remove the power of financing from cartels and terrorists.
The war on drugs is an inescapable hole and hard working people should receive the tax benefits of its sales rather than gang violence. Half of the tax revenue should go to recovery efforts and unhealthy/unhappy people should be able to exit the world on their own terms.
No, that has been the larger context this entire time. It was introduced many comments ago. Figures. You entered into a conversation with no idea what it was about.
I didnât dive deeper because all that I had to prove was that FDR programs were dissolved against the argument that none were desolved. IDK why you are trying to frame my argument for what it isnât other than to misjudge the point. It wasnât neccessary for me to address the temporary programs or judge the quality of any of them. Monte made a blanket statement that all/most of FDRâs programs sre still active, the fact is that they arenât. Furthermore, of the ones that are still active, their success is debatable even if they havenât been replaced or cancelled. Of them all, I guessed on a mutually agreeable number that may be considered successful.
Therefore, my argument was successful at its aim, maybe not yours, but stop trying to possess my counterargument. There are approximately 11 lasting programs and I havenât broken them down to evaluate them all. because I am reasonable to accept that some could be considered a success.
1 Like
I addressed the macro with the macro and micro at micro. I donât have to tailor every micro and draw it back. And, not doing so does not discredit me. Funny how I have given ground to gracefully accepting tenants of your arguments and Monteâs, but when it comes to an opportunity for you to reciprocate in kind, you attack my credibility.
I highly doubt that many would suggest I donât understand anything to which I speak. I get the context of it all, but I donât have to entertain your analysis methods to make solid arguments.
1 Like
Your argument was not successful because you didnât list the programs. You are counting the programs yourself with no transparency to how you are counting them, and you refuse to name the 11 programs that still exist or the others that donât exist. Is it possible that some of the programs that you are counting as dissolved arenât? Sure, but we canât account for that because you refuse to be transparent. I wonder why that is.
Now you claim that the context of the discussion is only about FDR. That is simply not true, and you are being extremely disingenuous. Allow me to remind you of a previous post you made in this thread:
The conversation has not been just about FDR. There was a larger part that you were a part of this entire time about capitalism and other forms of government. So nice try, but you canât lie your way out of this one.
Okay, well because you refuse to name the programs you considered dissolved vs the ones you consider still in government, I refuse to accept your argument that the rate is 10%. Therefore, you have not effectively disproven Monteâs point that most of FDRâs programs still exist.
I said, âIn fact, we need to do a 180 and continue to unwind many socialist policies.â
Monte said, âSee but thatâs not going to happen. The right has never stopped bitching about the colossal amount of socialist policies brought about during the FDR administration, and consider him one of the worst presidents because of it. But what FDR era social policies have been eliminated?â
In comments prior to this, he praised the unequivocal success of FDR. I, unlike the shadow group of conservatives yâall reference, already accepted that FDR had some success. To what degree, I havenât organized the programs to break each one down and opinion. itâs not necessary that I do thst work. From the work I did accomplish, I can EASILY deduce that the success of FDR is no where near as grand as you want it to have been. Nor is it worse than the shadow Republicans you reference having opinions that I havenât observed.
Fundamentally, a shit sandwich is better than nothing if youâre starving. It may be routine if no one goes out to look for an alternative. Even eating the sandwich routinely doesnât make it more nutritious or tasty.
The presence of FDR programs currently, or the fact that our country still exists doesnât make what was done ideal or the best. Am I grateful for FDR because our country is still here? As grateful as I would be surviving on a shit sandwich. But, I havenât stopped to smell or analyze the thing to convince myself its beef.