PM to BearsWon
Comments
-
Well, those guys are wrong. BUT we can never really know for sure, because it happened and then we had nearly 3 decades of growth thereafter, a lot of which was caused by factors that we would be hard pressed to replicate these days. I still believe to this day, that Reagan's tax cuts were sound economic policy for that moment in history. People forget that in 1981 the personal savings rate was like 10% in the country so we borrowed most of that money by ourselves. But deficits did grow under his watch which in my view set the bad precedent that they don't matter. We should have done better in the early 2000s.RaceBannon said:
I have had a lot of arguments with people who don't agree with that. We are still having that argument - Obama and Bush's stimulus versus RR or Trumps tax cuts and deregulationYellowSnow said:
WWII ended the Depression. Not the New Deal. We can all agree upon this.UW_Doog_Bot said:
For the record, lots of economists agree and that the New Deal was horrible policy. Video is a bit dry, but decent, and she's hot. So maybe even @Swaye will watch it on mute.YellowSnow said:
The conservatives at the time thought the POTUS in 1944 was the left wing appocolypse.Sledog said:The uber lefties on the board are appalled we attacked those poor hapless Germans who were just minding their own business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWAgt_YCNuw
Of course, all the poly sci/social science majors will tell you that the New Deal was a huge success bc reasons...
FDR's death probably saved us all a lot of socialist bullshit.
That said, even if it was not necessarily the best economic approach, it was still a political necessity. And long term, there's still a lot of long term benefit from legislation like SS, FDIC.
And for Christ's sake, we can not forget the god damned damns. W/o Grand Coulee, Bonneville, and TVA, WWII takes a lot longer to win- i.e., no cheap and readily available electricity for aluminum and uranium/plutonium enrichment. -
Managing WW2 is probably his biggest poont but that's not eco-nomics.dnc said:
The dams are the biggest poont in FDR's favor IMO. Not only did they greatly aid the war effort, they've paid for themselves many tims over in (mostly) clean energy since then.YellowSnow said:
WWII ended the Depression. Not the New Deal. We can all agree upon this.UW_Doog_Bot said:
For the record, lots of economists agree and that the New Deal was horrible policy. Video is a bit dry, but decent, and she's hot. So maybe even @Swaye will watch it on mute.YellowSnow said:
The conservatives at the time thought the POTUS in 1944 was the left wing appocolypse.Sledog said:The uber lefties on the board are appalled we attacked those poor hapless Germans who were just minding their own business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWAgt_YCNuw
Of course, all the poly sci/social science majors will tell you that the New Deal was a huge success bc reasons...
FDR's death probably saved us all a lot of socialist bullshit.
That said, even if it was not necessarily the best economic approach, it was still a political necessity. And long term, there's still a lot of long term benefit from legislation like SS, FDIC.
And for Christ's sake, we can not forget the god damned damns. W/o Grand Coulee, Bonneville, and TVA, WWII takes a lot longer to win- i.e., no cheap and readily available electricity for aluminum and uranium/plutonium enrichment.
The environmental impact upon construction was obviously huge, but hydro power is nails after that. -
Yeah I was talking about his economic policy. I'm not WWII scholar enough to make huge assertions about FDR's handling of the war effort but as far as I can tell it was mostly positive, fencing in all the Japs aside.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Managing WW2 is probably his biggest poont but that's not eco-nomics.dnc said:
The dams are the biggest poont in FDR's favor IMO. Not only did they greatly aid the war effort, they've paid for themselves many tims over in (mostly) clean energy since then.YellowSnow said:
WWII ended the Depression. Not the New Deal. We can all agree upon this.UW_Doog_Bot said:
For the record, lots of economists agree and that the New Deal was horrible policy. Video is a bit dry, but decent, and she's hot. So maybe even @Swaye will watch it on mute.YellowSnow said:
The conservatives at the time thought the POTUS in 1944 was the left wing appocolypse.Sledog said:The uber lefties on the board are appalled we attacked those poor hapless Germans who were just minding their own business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWAgt_YCNuw
Of course, all the poly sci/social science majors will tell you that the New Deal was a huge success bc reasons...
FDR's death probably saved us all a lot of socialist bullshit.
That said, even if it was not necessarily the best economic approach, it was still a political necessity. And long term, there's still a lot of long term benefit from legislation like SS, FDIC.
And for Christ's sake, we can not forget the god damned damns. W/o Grand Coulee, Bonneville, and TVA, WWII takes a lot longer to win- i.e., no cheap and readily available electricity for aluminum and uranium/plutonium enrichment.
The environmental impact upon construction was obviously huge, but hydro power is nails after that. -
I'm actually alright with transfer payments assuming the government doesn't take an 81% cut while funneling another 18% into other side projects. I'd rather see direct basic income than our labyrinthine system of government bureaucracies that "help" people.YellowSnow said:
Look, I love Friedman as much as any So Cal, Brooks Brothers, Young Republican. And I don't disagree with his critiques of the flaws in how SS was designed. My point is more along the lines that in a country such as ours, it's good public policy to ensure that old people have some base level of income when they can't work anymore. And there's not really a way to accomplish this goal other than some form of "mandatory" savings through taxation (even if current retirees are paid by taxation of current workers). Americans by their nature abhor the concept of wealth transfers, so really the only way sell SS to the voters was the idea that we all pay in and we all get something out upon retirement age, regardless of our financial situation at that time. A "needs based" plan would never have been feasible politically speaking.UW_Doog_Bot said:Friedman is not nearly as WOOD but his credentials are probably a lot better if you'd prefer to watch him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgyQsIGLt_w
The Great Depression Myth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdgv7n9xCY
The Social Security Myth
This is shit that even at a hugely Liberal school like UW is commonly accepted in the economics department.
SS could have been funded differently as it was originally promised to be and the transfers could incur a very minimal overhead instead of the huge $6,457,000,000 they cost in 2017. I'm more concerned with what is effective and efficient than what is "morally right" etc. It's just very rare that government is very efficient at anything. -
Agree BUT in a democracy such as ours the "best" plan usually won't win. Politics is the art of the possible, not what would make the most sense.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'm actually alright with transfer payments assuming the government doesn't take an 81% cut while funneling another 18% into other side projects. I'd rather see direct basic income than our labyrinthine system of government bureaucracies that "help" people.YellowSnow said:
Look, I love Friedman as much as any So Cal, Brooks Brothers, Young Republican. And I don't disagree with his critiques of the flaws in how SS was designed. My point is more along the lines that in a country such as ours, it's good public policy to ensure that old people have some base level of income when they can't work anymore. And there's not really a way to accomplish this goal other than some form of "mandatory" savings through taxation (even if current retirees are paid by taxation of current workers). Americans by their nature abhor the concept of wealth transfers, so really the only way sell SS to the voters was the idea that we all pay in and we all get something out upon retirement age, regardless of our financial situation at that time. A "needs based" plan would never have been feasible politically speaking.UW_Doog_Bot said:Friedman is not nearly as WOOD but his credentials are probably a lot better if you'd prefer to watch him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgyQsIGLt_w
The Great Depression Mythhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdgv7n9xCY
The Social Security Myth
This is shit that even at a hugely Liberal school like UW is commonly accepted in the economics department.
SS could have been funded differently as it was originally promised to be and the transfers could incur a very minimal overhead instead of the huge $6,457,000,000 they cost in 2017. I'm more concerned with what is effective and efficient than what is "morally right" etc. It's just very rare that government is very efficient at anything.
In theory I like Universal Basic Income, but we're still just in the theory stage and the devil's in the details. -
That's bullshit.RaceBannon said:And - some public works are more awesome than others
Obama's stimulus was supposed to go to jobs. I know for a fact that Washington state canceled construction projects and used the cash for pensions and unions -
Great proof as always2001400ex said:
That's bullshit.RaceBannon said:And - some public works are more awesome than others
Obama's stimulus was supposed to go to jobs. I know for a fact that Washington state canceled construction projects and used the cash for pensions and unions
It's the truth because I was there -
STFU. Liar.RaceBannon said:
Great proof as always2001400ex said:
That's bullshit.RaceBannon said:And - some public works are more awesome than others
Obama's stimulus was supposed to go to jobs. I know for a fact that Washington state canceled construction projects and used the cash for pensions and unions
It's the truth because I was there -
Proof?2001400ex said:
STFU. Liar.RaceBannon said:
Great proof as always2001400ex said:
That's bullshit.RaceBannon said:And - some public works are more awesome than others
Obama's stimulus was supposed to go to jobs. I know for a fact that Washington state canceled construction projects and used the cash for pensions and unions
It's the truth because I was there
Nice meltdown
It's a fact. I was there -
Meltdown? Haha. Liar.RaceBannon said:
Proof?2001400ex said:
STFU. Liar.RaceBannon said:
Great proof as always2001400ex said:
That's bullshit.RaceBannon said:And - some public works are more awesome than others
Obama's stimulus was supposed to go to jobs. I know for a fact that Washington state canceled construction projects and used the cash for pensions and unions
It's the truth because I was there
Nice meltdown
It's a fact. I was there
