it really bothers me that the minimum wage bill was blocked

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Please, refute the Sweden example, I BEG YOU

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Please, refute the Sweden example, I BEG YOU

In the middle of WoW right now, but I will shortly.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Absolutley, but where is the relief for the rest of us? Why don't we get some relief for the people who really feel the effect of this before the rich get it?

we've gotten relief a few times.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 7960

A recession started because of back room deals and politics. But you're advocating that the rich should have come "bail out" the politicians/bankers for making shitty decisions.

WAIT!! THEY DID!! (this is a link)

George Harrison bravely stepped in to provide tremendous amounts of credit to the banking system. This action prevented immediate bank failures and bankruptcies and a total collapse. The market recovered a good bit of ground but began to fall again before year-end.

From your own links first page:

"Interestingly, various bankers, government officials, and academics chose this three-year period to expound righteous advocacy of personal, corporate, and governmental frugality and restraint. "Leadership" that was so lacking when it could have helped in the frenetic 1920s. John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist whose economic stabilization theories would greatly influence the recovery in years to come, however, warned such austerity would only deepen the depression. As we will see, truly it did. "

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

we've gotten relief a few times.

Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all enacted tax cuts that lowered taxes for everyone.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

From your own links first page:

"Interestingly, various bankers, government officials, and academics chose this three-year period to expound righteous advocacy of personal, corporate, and governmental frugality and restraint. "Leadership" that was so lacking when it could have helped in the frenetic 1920s. John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist whose economic stabilization theories would greatly influence the recovery in years to come, however, warned such austerity would only deepen the depression. As we will see, truly it did. "

You realize Keynes repeatedly criticized the Roosevelt administration?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You realize Keynes repeatedly criticized the Roosevelt administration?

for....being too conservative....which im being attacked for now

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

for....being too conservative....which im being attacked for now

for being too conservative? the only thing he asserted that he was too conservative on was deficit spending. He criticized the administration for being hard on businesses, for discouraging business activity and creating a host of cartels that were basically government endorsed.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

for being too conservative? the only thing he asserted that he was too conservative on was deficit spending. .

Which was the major issue and IMO caused the recovery to stumble

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

From your own links first page:

"Interestingly, various bankers, government officials, and academics chose this three-year period to expound righteous advocacy of personal, corporate, and governmental frugality and restraint. "Leadership" that was so lacking when it could have helped in the frenetic 1920s. John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist whose economic stabilization theories would greatly influence the recovery in years to come, however, warned such austerity would only deepen the depression. As we will see, truly it did. "

Yep, it DEEPENED the depression THAT HAD ALREADY STARTED and was well under way.

You're proving my point for me.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Which was the major issue and IMO caused the recovery to stumble

oh my god

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Which was the major issue and IMO caused the recovery to stumble

Umm what?

The recovery stumbled because of the reforms the Roosevelt administration was attempting. NIRA, AAA and a host of other programs were huge impediments to recovery. The "soak the rich" policy decreased investment incentive and hampered recovery. What little recovery had begun in 1935 was quickly stomped out with Roosevelts further moves to the left after his 1936 election.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yep, it DEEPENED the depression THAT HAD ALREADY STARTED and was well under way.

You're proving my point for me.

My only point is that it deepened a recession into a depression, which was bad for the economy...which is the only point I've wanted to make

thanks

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Umm what?

The recovery stumbled because of the reforms the Roosevelt administration was attempting. NIRA, AAA and a host of other programs were huge impediments to recovery. The "soak the rich" policy decreased investment incentive and hampered recovery. What little recovery had begun in 1935 was quickly stomped out with Roosevelts further moves to the left after his 1936 election.

If he didn't use those programs there was a probability there woud have been a revolution, people believed that capitalism had failed

How come there wasn't investment in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933?

The rich weren't spending so the government had to, also, the "soak the rich" taxes were fine in the 1950s when our economy was a superpower

[DosEquis]

You supply siders make me lol and at the same time. The invisible hand must treat you better than it treats me..or something.

While speaking in generalities, the rich do not put their money in jars in the back yard. Their money also does not neccessarily result in jobs, higher wages, or other.

The consumer determines demand when they buy goods and services. Demand drives the wages and the price of things (except oil/gas). You want to help the economy, help the majority of consumers. After all, they are responsible for over 66% of our economy.

Paris Hilton is going to have to same spending habits if she has 150 million or 300 million. In the mean time the tax cut is also irresponsible. We are in a war and we need to pay for it.

I guess I believe in helping the average consumer instead of those who inherit millions of dollars in income and assets.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

You supply siders make me lol and at the same time. The invisible hand must treat you better than it treats me..or something.

While speaking in generalities, the rich do not put their money in jars in the back yard. Their money also does not neccessarily result in jobs, higher wages, or other.

The consumer determines demand when they buy goods and services. Demand drives the wages and the price of things (except oil/gas). You want to help the economy, help the majority of consumers. After all, they are responsible for over 66% of our economy.

Paris Hilton is going to have to same spending habits if she has 150 million or 300 million. In the mean time the tax cut is also irresponsible. We are in a war and we need to pay for it.

I guess I believe in helping the average consumer instead of those who inherit millions of dollars in income and assets.

You missed the point where the Hilton fortune is helping the average consumer because their investment in stock helps create capital which creates jobs and consumer items.

All of her money is used, if it is being spent on designer bags or being vested in X corporation. Thinking it is not is plain silly.

[DosEquis]

AND..

while paris hiltons money in the bank may help out with loans and things like credit cards, the average person can only have so much debt. The average american already has like $9,000 in credit card debt, and is saving less than $0.03 cents per $100.00 they bring in. Consumers are already spending about as fast as they possibly can.

You want to help the economy put more money in the hands of middle america. Like i said before, paris hiltons spending habits remain the same whether its 150 million in the bank or 300 million in the bank. Middle america is already spending all of its money. You can invest all you want but it does not increase demand. It might keep a company floating for awhile, hopefully it recovers, but eventually if demand does not increase the investor is going to want out.

I guess.. help the average guy get more money so he can spend it. The estate tax cut does not accomplish this.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by hsmith

You missed the point where the Hilton fortune is helping the average consumer because their investment in stock helps create capital which creates jobs and consumer items.

All of her money is used, if it is being spent on designer bags or being vested in X corporation. Thinking it is not is plain silly.

You can create all the items you want, if the average guy doesn't have the money to buy it you are fucked. You are stuck with 10,000 widgets with nobody to buy them.

[DosEquis]

You appear to only be viewing one side of the equation.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If he didn't use those programs there was a probability there woud have been a revolution, people believed that capitalism had failed

How come there wasn't investment in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933?

The rich weren't spending so the government had to, also, the "soak the rich" taxes were fine in the 1950s when our economy was a superpower

Because Hoover flipped out and didn't appropriately handle the situation either. He panicked and quickly increased taxes accross the board. He then began to regulate the banks which snowballed into bank failures. Roosevelt did stabalize banking initially but the lack of support for branch banking ultimately led to more bank failures.