Ron paul: Obama's goal is economic collapse

[unregistered]

 

[RightField]

Since you have a memory about as long as a piss ant, here's a reminder:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=30123882&postcount=44

Good reading

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

Excuse me, the Republicans did present arguments like that. Bush was reelected because people thought the mission was accomplished in Iraq, like he said. He would not have been reelected a second time.

Were you born yesterday? The "Mission Accomplished" fiasco was a year and a half before the 2004 election. The only people who believed it by then must have been living at the South Pole research station without enough power to run their short-wave radio.

Roosevelt was reelected three times because for most Americans life began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated the first time.

Oh, right. Before he actually did anything. I guess Hoover's to thank for that, then?

FDR was reelected three times because he was opposed by muffins like Landon, Willkie, and Dewey. Although his share of the popular vote dropped 6% in 1940 compared to 1936. His highest disapproval rating was in 1938.

During the 1930's, like now, the GOP had nothing to offer but repeats of the policies that caused the problem.

During the 1930's, like now, the Democrats had nothing to offer but criticism of their predecessors' outrageous spending during the campaign, and then rushed to repeat those policies they formerly blamed for the problem on a much larger scale once elected.

 

[underguy1]

Here's another link on the same study:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/FDRs_New_Deal_Prolonged_the_Great_Depression.html

That's truly hilarious. I laughed out loud.

 

[RightField]

Raising union wages so that fewer people had jobs (but the ones who kept their jobs did fairly well) isn't a recipe for bringing down unemployment no matter how many times you shout it out loud.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[underguy1]

Raising union wages so that fewer people had jobs (but the ones who kept their jobs did fairly well) isn't a recipe for bringing down unemployment no matter how many times you shout it out loud.

That is debatable on a number of levels. Higher wages does not equal less jobs. Demand determines labour requirement.

What is certain is that reducing wages is contractionary and leads to less demand and less jobs.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

Trouble is Americans had to live under FDR's folly for two years before it was declared unconstitutional.

Some of it was: the NRA in 1935, and the AAA in 1936. At least that stopped the insanely wasteful practice of plowing under perfectly good cotton, wheat, and corn crops, and slaughtering and burying healthy cattle, pigs, and sheep.

 

[underguy1]

Here, laugh at this one while you're at it:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n4/powell.pdf

Yep. Full of the same false premises as all these screeds. Amusing that grown adults can't see through the basic misconceptions of the supply side loons.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Since you have a memory about as long as a piss ant, here's a reminder:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=30123882&postcount=44

It has been said that "If you line up all the economists from end to end they will not come to a conclusion."

As I have already pointed out several times, and as you seem to keep forgetting, economists cannot prove their theories with controlled, repeatable experiments the way scientists in the natural sciences can. In chemistry if one takes a liter of distilled water at 20 Celsius, and mixes 10 grams of one chemical with 15 grams of another chemical the results can be measured, and they will be the same whenever and wherever one carries out the experiment. That cannot be done in economics. We cannot go back to 1933, follow a different set of policies, measure the results, and compare them with what did happen after 1933.

Causal relationships cannot be proven in economics in ways that everyone must agree. Nevertheless, they can be indicated. Throughout the New Deal the country did recover from the Great Depression. That is why Roosevelt was reelected three times, and why Republicans have not been able to repeal New Deal reforms.

You cited Milton Friedman. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976. My favorite columnist is Paul Krugman. He has a bi-weekly column in The New York Times, teaches economics at Princeton, and won the Nobel Prize in economics last year. He advocates economic policies to the left of what President Obama is pursuing.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Yep. Full of the same false premises as all these screeds. Amusing that grown adults can't see through the basic misconceptions of the supply side loons.

They cannot see through these misconceptions because they prefer to believe what is not true.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Baltimore, April 13, 1945

The Sun editorial on Roosevelt this morning begins: "Franklin D. Roosevelt was a great man." There are heavy black dashes above and below it. The argument, in brief, is that all his skullduggeries and imbecilities were wiped out when "he took an inert and profoundly isolationist people and brought them to support a necessary war on a scale never before imagined." In other words, his greatest fraud was his greatest glory, and sufficient excuse for all his other frauds. It is astonishing how far the Sun has gone in this nonsense. When the English fetched Patterson and John Owens they certainly did an all-out job. I know of no paper in the United States, not even the New York Herald Tribune, that croons for them more assiduously.

Roosevelt's unparallelled luck held out to the end. He died an easy death, and he did so just in time to escape burying his own dead horse. This business now falls to Truman, a third-rate Middle Western politician on the order of Harding. He is fundamentally against the New Deal wizards, and he will probably make an earnest effort to turn them out of power, but I have some doubt that he will succeed. They have dug in deeply and they may be expected to fight to the bitter end, for once they are out they will be nothing and they know it. The case of La Eleanor is not without its humors. Only yesterday she was the most influential female ever recorded in American history, but tomorrow she will begin to fade, and by this time next year she may be wholly out of the picture. I wonder how many newspapers will go on printing her "My Day." Probably not many.

It seems to me to be very likely that Roosevelt will take a high place in American popular history -- maybe even alongside Washington and Lincoln. It will be to the interest of all his heirs and assigns to whoop him up, and they will probably succeed in swamping his critics. If the war drags on it is possible, of course, that there may be a reaction against him, and there may be another and worse after war is over at last, but the chances, I think, run the other way. He had every quality that morons esteem in their heroes. Thus a demigod seems to be in the making, and in a little while we may see a grandiose memorial under way in Washington, comparable to those to Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. In it, I suppose, Eleanor will have a niche, but probably not a conspicuous one. The majority of Americans, I believe, distrust and dislike her, and all her glories have been only reflections from Franklin.

The Baltimore Hearst paper, the News-Post, handled the great news with typical cynicism. Hearst is one of the most violent enemies of Roosevelt, and all his papers have been reviling the New Deal, and even propagating doubts about the war. But the whole first page of the News-Post is given over this afternoon to a large portrait of Roosevelt flanked by two flags in color and headed "Nation Mourns." The editorial page is filled with an editorial saying, among other things, "The work and name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt will live on, not only today or tomorrow, but in all the annals of recorded time." This, as I have noted, is probably a fact, but it is certainly not a fact that tickles Hearst. He is, however, an expert in mob psychology, and does not expect much. The Sun is in far less rational position. It certifies to Roosevelt's greatness in all seriousness.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

The far right HAS to smear FDR, because without doing so, they can't promote their misguided and treasonous agenda.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The far right HAS to smear FDR, because without doing so, they can't promote their misguided and treasonous agenda.

And the far left HAS to continue to believe in obsolete myths and shopworn fairy tales, because the reality would be too painful for them to bear.

 

[off2bed]

And the far left HAS to continue to believe in obsolete myths and shopworn fairy tales, because the reality would be too painful for them to bear.

They also insist on fighting the current "war" with 75 year old solutions from the last one. Why would a recession be cured by the same things as a depression?

 

[Byron In Exile]

They also insist on fighting the current "war" with 75 year old solutions from the last one. Why would a recession be cured by the same things as a depression?

The difference between a recession and a depression is a matter of degree; in the end, it's a matter of how to define where one ends and the other begins.

The real problems are two: First, the "solutions" proposed today have only one thing in common with those of 75 years ago: the borrowing and spending of outrageous sums of money. During the Great Depression, the cash was focused in particular directions, today the cash is simply being strewn to the winds. Second, the 75-year-old "solutions" not only didn't help solve the problem, they exacerbated it, and delayed recovery from it. So, one could define a depression as a recession which, by attempting to solve it, the government manages to make last about five times longer than it otherwise would have. Whether Obama can succeed in securing his place in history by creating a depression out of a recession remains to be seen.

 

[Byron In Exile]

As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject [Prohibition], but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare, and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt, March 2, 1930

Lol...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

LOL, that's funny as hell. Where is Trou?

Probably curled up in bed, under the covers, hugging his bust of FDR.

 

[SubforRent]

They also insist on fighting the current "war" with 75 year old solutions from the last one. Why would a recession be cured by the same things as a depression?

You mean like the right's "war on drugs" ??

Otherwise known as a continuous proxy war in the latin American nations?