Us Politics

[antistuff 0]

And anyone who thinks that politicians are only in it for themselves is hopelessly cynical.

this from the hippie turned republican?

[navybuttons 16]

Probably a whole lot...what's your point? They're both dirty, untrustworthy politicians so for LMD to say that McCain was doing it out of duty is bullshit. Anyone who thinks these guys have the country's best interests at heart and that this is anything other than a chess match is very naive.

they've worked their asses off for years, given up sleep and relationships because they want the 250K/yr salary. i think both of them have the country's best interest at heart. it's just unfortunate that in our system politicians feel pressure to compromise certain values because of the potential positive future impact they could have.

[Loismustdie 0]

they've worked their asses off for years, given up sleep and relationships because they want the 250K/yr salary. i think both of them have the country's best interest at heart. it's just unfortunate that in our system politicians feel pressure to compromise certain values because of the potential positive future impact they could have.

This. Seriously, this isn't as cynical and diabolical as the left would like to paint it. McCain did want to be there for these unprecedented talks. Yes, it made Obama look bad because he didn't want to, but sometimes the political move and the right move collide. This is one of those times.

[hblask 1]

And anyone who thinks that politicians are only in it for themselves is hopelessly cynical.

I wouldn't say they are in it *only* for themselves, but when push comes to shove, that's what is going to win. During an election cycle, vote-getting beats common sense and doing what is right.

[Potomophobia 17]

Every generation since the beginning of mankind thinks they are special and will be the last generation. This is why just about every Religion has some sort of apocalypse and also why every generation has assumed it would happen on THEIR watch. No one wants to admit we are just another link in an infinite chain. I am special and unique so my time on Earth MUST have a special meaning - my "Great Depression" is going to be BIGGER than my parent'sI certainly do not consider myself, or my generation special. If anything, I have to apologize for my generation. It is the people who are of my age who created this mess WE are in. I have 3 children. And I am very worried about what kind of country they will grow up in.I am just a small link in an infinite chain. But when I try to teach my children..... give them values...... tell them what is right and what is wrong. When I try to tell them that hard work and determination will pay off......They look at what people my age have done. They look at what they are inheriting. They try to buy a condo. They try to get a job with a college education that will pay the bills of a minimal existence. They see the never ending war in Iraq. They see the costs of living eating up any chance of saving anything for the future.And they say to me....... WTF Dad? The sad part is...... I don't have a good answer.It is not an apocalypse. And I don't believe in religion. But it is not pretty. And it is going to get uglier before it gets better.To all of you young folks out there, I apologize for the mess my generation has left you. But I will leave you with this:I said it would be rough, not hopeless. You are the next generation. You can make things better. Pay attention to politics. Get involved. Vote! You are all smart....and together you are all very powerful. You really can change the world.

[Vandees 0]

Depression? Very doubtful OP. I hope you were joking.First, unemployment was 25% during the depression. Last I checked we're nowhere near that figure. Second, prior to the depression, the US passed a bill that essentially ended all overseas trade and import with extraordinarily high tariffs. Now, there is GATT, the Uruguay Round and the WTO to fall back on. There is more worldwide trade. Now, while the dollar may be low, that makes US products cheaper, thus more enticing to the rest of the world. This will counteract any "depression"-like symptoms. Relax...go to it. It will be fine.

[copernicus 0]

Depression? Very doubtful OP. I hope you were joking.First, unemployment was 25% during the depression. Last I checked we're nowhere near that figure. Second, prior to the depression, the US passed a bill that essentially ended all overseas trade and import with extraordinarily high tariffs. Now, there is GATT, the Uruguay Round and the WTO to fall back on. There is more worldwide trade. Now, while the dollar may be low, that makes US products cheaper, thus more enticing to the rest of the world. This will counteract any "depression"-like symptoms. Relax...go to it. It will be fine.

I tend to agree with you but in a perfect storm things could spiral into a depression. While global trade could slow that down, the US economy is still the big dog, and if we slow down so does everybody else. And foreign banks are so heavily invested in US paper they are facing the same pressures. Fortis is facing a crunch for example.

[El Guapo 10]

I just need to point out something. A depression is just 4 quarters of negative growth twice a recession). Not that unreasonable. Now the Great Depression, that is a whole different story.

[Nimue1995 1]

Looked up the Great Depression on the net. Any of the following sound familiar?Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)[21] mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.]Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression.

[copernicus 0]

Looked up the Great Depression on the net. Any of the following sound familiar?

Your homework assignment is to identify the differences, which are actually more important than the similarities.

[Nimue1995 1]

Your homework assignment is to identify the differences, which are actually more important than the similarities.

You can't give me homework. I'm out sick.

[hblask 1]

Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

This paragraph alone disqualifies this author from ever writing about economics again. It is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start, but here are a couple quick ones.First, economics is not a zero sum game. When a trade occurs, both sides have improved.Second, saving doesn't take money out of the economy, it moves it from short-term uses to long-term uses (in general). If you spend, it's generally for consumption. If you save, the money goes into the investment community. This creates more jobs and more wealth. This is how the rich get richer and the poor get richer, too.

[KONGOS 0]

And anyone who thinks that politicians are only in it for themselves is hopelessly cynical.

Maybe, I guess I just need proof.

[copernicus 0]

This paragraph alone disqualifies this author from ever writing about economics again.

Since hes been dead 30 years I dont think thats a problem. As one of the primary architects of that disaster we will never recover from called the New Deal, it isnt surprising that his opinion of the depression is hopelessly convoluted.

[hblask 1]

Since hes been dead 30 years I dont think thats a problem....

LOL, I didn't even look who the author was....

[Nimue1995 1]

This paragraph alone disqualifies this author from ever writing about economics again. It is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start, but here are a couple quick ones.First, economics is not a zero sum game. When a trade occurs, both sides have improved.Second, saving doesn't take money out of the economy, it moves it from short-term uses to long-term uses (in general). If you spend, it's generally for consumption. If you save, the money goes into the investment community. This creates more jobs and more wealth. This is how the rich get richer and the poor get richer, too.

So what in your opinion, H, caused the Great Depression? I've been asking this question of a number of people. By the way, that guy was FDR's chief economic adviser. And at that time we were still on the gold standard so there was a finite amount of money that could go into the system. Unlike now when our money is only tied to faith in the credit of the United States.

[copernicus 0]

So what in your opinion, H, caused the Great Depression? I've been asking this question of a number of people. By the way, that guy was FDR's chief economic adviser. And at that time we were still on the gold standard so there was a finite amount of money that could go into the system. Unlike now when our money is only tied to faith in the credit of the United States.

You identified one of the problems and one of the things thats different today right there. Your homework wasnt so hard, see?

[hblask 1]

So what in your opinion, H, caused the Great Depression?

Here's an very dry article that appears to be pretty good:http://www.shambhala.org/business/goldocean/causdep.htmlCliff notes:The 20's were a period of irrational exuberance. As we entered a normal economic downswing/correction, the federal govt severely mismanaged the money supply, turning a correction into a depression. Then FDR's federal spending programs and regulations made recovery impossible, turning a depression into The Great Depression.I've seen more detail explanations that seem more accurate, but this is close enough.

[hblask 1]

I should note that one of the conclusions of the article -- that we need huge federal programs to save us from the next Great Depression -- is a bit amusing, considering that they had successfully concluded that federal mismanagement of the economy was the primary cause of the Great Depression. Seems a bit silly to say that you can fix a problem by giving us more of what caused it in the first place.

[copernicus 0]

Here's an very dry article that appears to be pretty good:http://www.shambhala.org/business/goldocean/causdep.htmlCliff notes:The 20's were a period of irrational exuberance. As we entered a normal economic downswing/correction, the federal govt severely mismanaged the money supply, turning a correction into a depression. Then FDR's federal spending programs and regulations made recovery impossible, turning a depression into The Great Depression.I've seen more detail explanations that seem more accurate, but this is close enough.

Pretty good for a surface level treatment. The Paulies need to read the monetary policy problems and the implications of the Federal Reserve and moving off the gold standard.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Looked up the Great Depression on the net. Any of the following sound familiar?Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)[21] mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.]Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression.

Or compare it to an explanation given by someone who wasn't hopelessly socialist.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I just need to point out something. A depression is just 4 quarters of negative growth twice a recession). Not that unreasonable. Now the Great Depression, that is a whole different story.

...and exactly how many Quarters of Negative Growth have we had so far?Can we please first have a Recession before we start talking about a Depression?

[copernicus 0]

...and exactly how many Quarters of Negative Growth have we had so far?Can we please first have a Recession before we start talking about a Depression?

Be careful what you wish for The markets arent happy this morning...the question is are they unhappy because of what has been proposed, or unhappy because it hasnt been done yet!

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Be careful what you wish for The markets arent happy this morning...the question is are they unhappy because of what has been proposed, or unhappy because it hasnt been done yet!

Yeah, I know. I don't doubt for a minute that an actual Recession is a possibility, followed by a couple of years of digging out, and perhaps even an actual Depression. I just tire of these armchair QBs discussing a Depression as if we are sitting in 1929.

[Nimue1995 1]

Yeah, I know. I don't doubt for a minute that an actual Recession is a possibility, followed by a couple of years of digging out, and perhaps even an actual Depression. I just tire of these armchair QBs discussing a Depression as if we are sitting in 1929.

When people were sitting in 1929, they were still pretty optimistic also. In fact by I believe 1930, the stock market had recovered to the point they were in April of 1929. Thank you Cope, I did realize that we were on the gold standard then. But as the market plunged and banks failed more people were drawing out what they could of gold certificate dollars and trading them in for actual gold further reducing the amount of gold the Federal Reserve had and reducing more the amount of dollars in the system.