Time: What U.S. Economic Recovery?

[Henry]

Time out. You're using unemployment figures during the war to make your case?

We should just bring back the draft and start a land war with China and the EU at the same time. Boom! Instant need for millions of troops! Oh worldwide conflict, is there no unemployment problem you can't solve?

Well, uh, we weren't fighting in the war in the beginning of 1941, but ... that's not really the point.

You libs are suggesting that it was not increased government spending (and rationing, and high taxes, and heavy regulation, and increasingly strong labor unions) during the war that caused our economic recovery, but rather it was because we emerged from the war as the only unscathed economy. That suggestion is not very compelling when you consider our recovery occurred long before the rest of the world's economies and manufacturing capacities had been damaged or destroyed, and in fact, before we had even entered the war ourselves.

[Larry]

Well winners do usually write the history :pfft:

Or re-write it.

---------- Post added June-16th-2011 at 08:50 PM ----------

Well, uh, we weren't fighting in the war in the beginning of 1941, but ... that's not really the point.

You libs are suggesting that it was not increased government spending (and rationing, and high taxes, and heavy regulation, and increasingly strong labor unions) during the war that caused our economic recovery, but rather it was because we emerged from the war as the only unscathed economy. That suggestion is not very compelling when you consider our recovery occurred long before the rest of the world's economies and manufacturing capacities had been damaged or destroyed, and in fact, before we had even entered the war ourselves.

Aw, there you go, trying to insist that, when attempting to assign "cause" to an "effect", that the cause has to precede the effect.

You'll never be able to try to make it in the party of political revision that way.

[Hubbs]

Well, uh, we weren't fighting in the war in the beginning of 1941, but ... that's not really the point.

You libs are suggesting that it was not increased government spending (and rationing, and high taxes, and heavy regulation, and increasingly strong labor unions) during the war that caused our economic recovery, but rather it was because we emerged from the war as the only unscathed economy. That suggestion is not very compelling when you consider our recovery occurred long before the rest of the world's economies and manufacturing capacities had been damaged or destroyed, and in fact, before we had even entered the war ourselves.

Missed the word "beginning" in your other post, although we actually began the draft and our military buildup in 1940. Furthermore, we began selling war materiel to our future allies in 1939. But most importantly, you're saying that "we libs" are suggesting that it wasn't increased government spending "during the war" that caused our economic recovery, while simultaneously making the claim that our recovery occurred before we entered the war. So... which is it?

Aw, there you go, trying to insist that, when attempting to assign "cause" to an "effect", that the cause has to precede the effect.

You'll never be able to try to make it in the party of political revision that way.

I humbly submit that he didn't quite manage to insist that.

[PCS]

If only. There may be $2 trillion sitting on the balance sheets of American corporations globally, but firms show no signs of wanting to spend it in order to hire workers at home, however much Washington might hope they will. Meanwhile, the average American is feeling poorer by the week. "If one looks at unemployment and housing, it's clear that for all practical purposes, we have yet to fully get out of recession," says Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, summing up what everyone who doesn't live inside the Beltway Bubble is thinking. While the White House's official 2011 growth estimate, locked in before Japan and the oil shock, is still 3.1%, most economic seers are betting on 2.6%. That's not nearly enough to propel us out of an unemployment crisis that threatens to create a lost generation of workers who can't find good jobs and may never find them. Welcome to the 2% economy.

Now I'll preface this with the fact that I dropped out of college in my second year in,(small),part,because I was doing.....poorly in my new major of business. But the above quote seems to be fairly accurate from this particular view from the street. I'm also concerned with another generation that's feeling this whole thing pretty good and that's the 40 to 50 something blue collar guys who,like me,are having a tough time finding part time work much less full time work. Apparently writing on your resume that your an older,ex carpenter for so many years isn't the best way to impress HR departments. Go figure. What all that means is,it ain't looking too good from the cheap seats right now,(though I am a part of that C political party. C as in cynic.

[twa]

Well, uh, we weren't fighting in the war in the beginning of 1941, but ... that's not really the point.

.

Well you could say we entered economically much earlier than physically

Preparedness and Conversion

As war spread throughout Europe and Asia between 1939 and 1941, nowhere was the federal government's leadership more important than in the realm of "preparedness" — the national project to ready for war by enlarging the military, strengthening certain allies such as Great Britain, and above all converting America's industrial base to produce armaments and other war materiel rather than civilian goods. "Conversion" was the key issue in American economic life in 1940-1942.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

I see Hubbs already touched on it....we also were helped by selling to the Germans pre war

[Hunter44]

So now that the top 2% of earners got their tax cuts, where are all the jobs that they were going to produce??

[Larry]

Well you could say we entered economically much earlier than physically

Preparedness and Conversion

As war spread throughout Europe and Asia between 1939 and 1941, nowhere was the federal government's leadership more important than in the realm of "preparedness" — the national project to ready for war by enlarging the military, strengthening certain allies such as Great Britain, and above all converting America's industrial base to produce armaments and other war materiel rather than civilian goods. "Conversion" was the key issue in American economic life in 1940-1942.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

Now if only there were some way to use that paragraph to explain why the recovery began in 1933.

[twa]

see my add

Buckle up boys,things are gonna get interesting

[Guest Spearfeather]

(Heck, the same textbook might say that Paul Revere rode to warn the British.)

I know, and conservative papers like the L.A. Times saying, she was actually right and stuff.....Crazy!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

[Henry]

Missed the word "beginning" in your other post, although we actually began the draft and our military buildup in 1940. Furthermore, we began selling war materiel to our future allies in 1939. But most importantly, you're saying that "we libs" are suggesting that it wasn't increased government spending "during the war" that caused our economic recovery, while simultaneously making the claim that our recovery occurred before we entered the war. So... which is it?

You guys are killing me. It's like you are scrambling around trying to prove anything but our own economic policy got us out of the Great Depression. It wasn't our policy after the depression it was the war. Ok, it wasn't our policy during the war, it was that we won the war. Ok, it wasn't that it was ... I'm not even sure what you are arguing here anymore. I've lost track. Maybe it was German, Japanese and British planes flying over the US dropping hundred dollar bills over the midwest or something, because apparently nothing our government did from 1932 to 1945 had any positive effect on an economy that went from the absolute crapper to the most powerful dynamic economy the world has ever seen. It was all just PURE LUCK! Wheeeee!

For the record, I don't think it was 'just the war' that pulled us out of the depression. I think our pre-war and wartime policies both get credit. I also do think the decimation of Europe contributed to our rise as one of the two post-war superpowers. However, I think if a 70+% top tax bracket, tight regulation and moderate entitlement spending were SO crippling to an economy it would have been impossible to maintain that superpower status for over half a century while literally giving billions away to struggling allies around the world.

As far as I can tell, libertarians think WW2 is responsible for all of our economic good fortune from 1941 until now. And that we remained a strong nation for decades despite our economic policies. Sorry, it wasn't THAT big a win.

---------- Post added June-16th-2011 at 10:24 PM ----------

Well you could say we entered economically much earlier than physically

Preparedness and Conversion

As war spread throughout Europe and Asia between 1939 and 1941, nowhere was the federal government's leadership more important than in the realm of "preparedness" — the national project to ready for war by enlarging the military, strengthening certain allies such as Great Britain, and above all converting America's industrial base to produce armaments and other war materiel rather than civilian goods. "Conversion" was the key issue in American economic life in 1940-1942.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

I see Hubbs already touched on it....we also were helped by selling to the Germans pre war

Ok. That pretty much supports what Madison Redskin said.

How does this support your counter that WW2 decimating every other industrial economy got us out of the Great Depression?

[deejaydana]

I think the issue that should concern us the most, as average working Americans, is that nothing between Washington and Wall Street has fundamentally changed since the 2008 crisis. Why is this ? We can talk about how Obama should have done this and that (and certainly he's never had a business-geared mind but that's a debate for another time) but the reality is we're now at a very serious crossroads. Families need to wind down massive debt, gov't (painful as it may be) must pare back entitlements and we need to come up with sensible LONGER TERM solutions. The 2012 Election is probably going to be the most consequential event of our lives in regards to how we steward this country forward.

[88Comrade2000]

I think the issue that should concern us the most, as average working Americans, is that nothing between Washington and Wall Street has fundamentally changed since the 2008 crisis. Why is this ? We can talk about how Obama should have done this and that (and certainly he's never had a business-geared mind but that's a debate for another time) but the reality is we're now at a very serious crossroads. Families need to wind down massive debt, gov't (painful as it may be) must pare back entitlements and we need to come up with sensible LONGER TERM solutions. The 2012 Election is probably going to be the most consequential event of our lives in regards to how we steward this country forward.

We say about every election.

Actually, the banks are doing the same type of lending that got us into the mess in the first place.

[twa]

Ok. That pretty much supports what Madison Redskin said.

How does this support your counter that WW2 decimating every other industrial economy got us out of the Great Depression?

Not a counter,but rather a addition,as my link stated the expanded govt influence on business enabled directed manufacturing.....we profited from both the buildup on both sides and the destruction that followed.....just good business

too bad we lost our business sense...but never fear necessity is the mother of invention eh?

[Hubbs]

You guys are killing me. It's like you are scrambling around trying to prove anything but our own economic policy got us out of the Great Depression. It wasn't our policy after the depression it was the war. Ok, it wasn't our policy during the war, it was that we won the war. Ok, it wasn't that it was ... I'm not even sure what you are arguing here anymore. I've lost track. Maybe it was German, Japanese and British planes flying over the US dropping hundred dollar bills over the midwest or something, because apparently nothing our government did from 1932 to 1945 had any positive effect on an economy that went from the absolute crapper to the most powerful dynamic economy the world has ever seen. It was all just PURE LUCK! Wheeeee!

For the record, I don't think it was 'just the war' that pulled us out of the depression. I think our pre-war and wartime policies both get credit. I also do think the decimation of Europe contributed to our rise as one of the two post-war superpowers. However, I think if a 70+% top tax bracket, tight regulation and moderate entitlement spending were SO crippling to an economy it would have been impossible to maintain that superpower status for over half a century while literally giving billions away to struggling allies around the world.

As far as I can tell, libertarians think WW2 is responsible for all of our economic good fortune from 1941 until now. And that we remained a strong nation for decades despite our economic policies. Sorry, it wasn't THAT big a win.

Erm... I was just trying to nail down when you think the real "recovery" happened. You seemed to say it was both before and after WWII in your post. I only want to get the parameters of the discussion nailed down before moving forward.

Remember, I might be the only libertarian you'll ever meet who thinks it would have been better for the Bush tax cuts to not be extended. (Or really ever done in the first place.) So trust me, you're not just talking to a brick wall here.

[luckydevil]

Erm... I was just trying to nail down when you think the real "recovery" happened. You seemed to say it was both before and after WWII in your post. I only want to get the parameters of the discussion nailed down before moving forward.

Remember, I might be the only libertarian you'll ever meet who thinks it would have been better for the Bush tax cuts to not be extended. (Or really ever done in the first place.) So trust me, you're not just talking to a brick wall here.

I haven't read the thread, but add me to that list as well.

---------- Post added June-17th-2011 at 01:30 AM ----------

Henry,

You should know better. When did Kilmer and twa count as "libertarians". I for one believe that the New Deal prolonged the depression and WW2 didn't end it. It didn't end until after the war when government intervention was dramatically pulled back.

Larry,

I understand you are trying to be sarcastic, but the funny thing is FDR did campaign on a small government platform against Hoover's big government administration.

[Hubbs]

I for one believe that the depression prolonged the depression

I think one thing we can all agree on is that the depression prolonged the depression.

[PeterMP]

Well you could say we entered economically much earlier than physically

Preparedness and Conversion

As war spread throughout Europe and Asia between 1939 and 1941, nowhere was the federal government's leadership more important than in the realm of "preparedness" — the national project to ready for war by enlarging the military, strengthening certain allies such as Great Britain, and above all converting America's industrial base to produce armaments and other war materiel rather than civilian goods. "Conversion" was the key issue in American economic life in 1940-1942.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

I see Hubbs already touched on it....we also were helped by selling to the Germans pre war

Do you want to put a year on that?

---------- Post added June-17th-2011 at 05:47 AM ----------

Larry,

I understand you are trying to be sarcastic, but the funny thing is FDR did campaign on a small government platform against Hoover's big government administration.

FDR said some small government things. I suspect everybody that has ever run for President has, but it was pretty clear that FDR was going to alter how the US government functioned. From his nomination speech:

"And now one word about unemployment, and incidentally about agriculture. I have favored the use of certain types of public works as a further emergency means of stimulating employment and the issuance of bonds to pay for such public works, but I have pointed out that no economic end is served if we merely build without building for a necessary purpose. Such works, of course, should insofar as possible be self-sustaining if they are to be financed by the issuing of bonds. So as to spread the points of all kinds as widely as possible, we must take definite steps to shorten the working day and the working week. "

"Why, every European Nation has a definite land policy, and has had one for generations. We have none. Having none, we face a future of soil erosion and timber famine. It is clear that economic foresight and immediate employment march hand in hand in the call for the reforestation of these vast areas.

In so doing, employment can be given to a million men. That is the kind of public work that is self-sustaining, and therefore capable of being financed by the issuance of bonds which are made secure by the fact that the growth of tremendous crops will provide adequate security for the investment.

Yes, I have a very definite program for providing employment by that means. I have done it, and I am doing it today in the State of New York. I know that the Democratic Party can do it successfully in the Nation. That will put men to work, and that is an example of the action that we are going to have."

"Our Republican leaders tell us economic laws--sacred, inviolable, unchangeable--cause panics which no one could prevent. But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.

Yes, when--not if--when we get the chance, the Federal Government will assume bold leadership in distress relief. For years Washington has alternated between putting its head in the sand and saying there is no large number of destitute people in our midst who need food and clothing, and then saying the States should take care of them, if there are. Instead of planning two and a half years ago to do what they are now trying to do, they kept putting it off from day to day, week to week, and month to month, until the conscience of America demanded action.

I say that while primary responsibility for relief rests with localities now, as ever, yet the Federal Government has always had and still has a continuing responsibility for the broader public welfare. It will soon fulfill that responsibility. "

http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932b.htm

FDR ran on a New Deal platform. I don't think many people thought that he was talking about returning to a pre-WWI US economic startegy.

[SnyderShrugged]

Erm... I was just trying to nail down when you think the real "recovery" happened. You seemed to say it was both before and after WWII in your post. I only want to get the parameters of the discussion nailed down before moving forward.

Remember, I might be the only libertarian you'll ever meet who thinks it would have been better for the Bush tax cuts to not be extended. (Or really ever done in the first place.) So trust me, you're not just talking to a brick wall here.

You and a few others have done a great job in convincing this libertarian that some tax increases need to be implemented as well. I may differ a bit in that I would like to see massive spending reductions occur first and then sensible tax increases to fill the remaining gap after the waste is removed (Its likely the Six Sigma Master Black Belt/Lean Consultant in me that lends this bias to my personal views regarding addressing waste first)

[chipwhich]

You and a few others have done a great job in convincing this libertarian that some tax increases need to be implemented as well. I may differ a bit in that I would like to see massive spending reductions occur first and then sensible tax increases to fill the remaining gap after the waste is removed (Its likely the Six Sigma Master Black Belt/Lean Consultant in me that lends this bias to my personal views regarding addressing waste first)

Amen brother.

I will never be for any kind of tax increase until there is some belt tightening in Washington.

Increasing taxes without some fiscal responsibility wont fix anything.

[Henry]

Erm... I was just trying to nail down when you think the real "recovery" happened. You seemed to say it was both before and after WWII in your post. I only want to get the parameters of the discussion nailed down before moving forward.

Remember, I might be the only libertarian you'll ever meet who thinks it would have been better for the Bush tax cuts to not be extended. (Or really ever done in the first place.) So trust me, you're not just talking to a brick wall here.

Fair enough.

You should know better. When did Kilmer and twa count as "libertarians".

When have they started blaming Abraham Lincoln for ruining the country? Seriously though, when have they not been considered libertarians?

I don't want to speak for them. Maybe they can correct me.

I for one believe that the depression prolonged the depression and WW2 didn't end it. It didn't end until after the war when government intervention was dramatically pulled back.

Then I guess the post I wrote to Hubbs was actually for you.

[Larry]

Right. Because everybody knows that massive spending cuts while keeping taxes the same, during a Great Depression, would really make things better

[SnyderShrugged]

Seriously though, when have they not been considered libertarians?

Never, by actual libertarians. Not to knock their views, because Im sure there is some overlap in some specific small government issues, but overall. Not quite.

I dont feel comfortable assigning lables at all anyway, but its a stretch to lable folks with very neo-con ideals as "libertarian".

I honestly consider you much more libertarian in many ways more than TWA and Kilmer.

---------- Post added June-17th-2011 at 08:11 AM ----------

Right. Because everybody knows that massive spending cuts while keeping taxes the same, during a Great Depression, would really make things better

Who is this in response to Larry?

[heyholetsgogrant]

Texas still has a unemployment rate of 8% hardly a shining beacon of light, if I were Gov. Rick Perry I'm not sure if I would running around (like he did on the daily show a month back) saying how you did this, you did that when your own unemployment rate is still high. Yes they may have created many jobs last month, but it was manly due to rising energy prices, which they refuse to even mention.

[DCsportsfan53]

To me, the biggest difference between the New Deal gov't spending and the Bush/Obama stimulus is that FDR told the banks to go **** themselves, get their **** together and this is how it's going to be, then proceeded to spend money putting people to work building the country. Bush/Obama just said "oh, you guys ****ed up, huh? Here's a blank check to fix it. What do you mean there's more to America than Wall Street and banks?".

[heyholetsgogrant]

To me, the biggest difference between the New Deal gov't spending and the Bush/Obama stimulus is that FDR told the banks to go **** themselves, get their **** together and this is how it's going to be, then proceeded to spend money putting people to work building the country. Bush/Obama just said "oh, you guys ****ed up, huh? Here's a blank check to fix it. What do you mean there's more to America than Wall Street and banks?".

+1 The banks are doing some of the same things they did before, possibly creating another recession.