'We're on the verge of a great, great depression'

[rareboy]

^

Hello . How r u?

Good post here - agree with all or at least most

America IS great However

The current admin and dem majority refuse to recognize that social handouts are not the answer - and their unwillingness to address entitlements weakens the economic foundation that is based on private enterprise and hard work not hand outs

Bail outs for big business or homeowners is a one night stand not sustaining

IMO unemployment will continue to vex our leadership as job definitions and skill sets to match the new economy are not in sync with the workforce

Everyone out of work MUST learn a new skill - or risk being unemployable at worst underemployed at best

What a pile of tripe as usual.

The problem is pissing away trillions based on the illusion that you can spend yourself rich through war.

And not having reasonable levels of taxation for corporations and the wealthy.

And pigging out on 'cheap' toys made in third world countries.

It has nothing to do with the Democrats or social programs. The crisis started during the spend like whores on a holiday Republican years.

One of the basic things some people might want to learn as a new skill is economics 101 for dummies.
If some could even be bothered to look at other western countries, they might see that it is possible to have publicly funded healthcare and social security programs while still managing to emerge from the Wall Street created recession fiasco.

 

[jackoroe]

Jackaroe: you are quoting Forbes Magazine to me? Good Lord Almighty.

I'm going to let somebody else eviscerate you for that.

(aside to other JUBbers: this is one reason why I think righties often live on another planet than the rest of us.)

I see, now there's a problem with Forbes Magazine. I know it's a bit of work, but if you have an issue with the facts cited by the publication, take issue with them and refute them. That's the way discussion works.

 

[palemale]

Let's refresh your memory, OK? This on Reaganomics.



http://blogs.forbes.com/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

What a load of horseshit. Reaganomics is one of the major culprits in our current economic catastrophe. Your citation is complete bullshit. You cite Peter Ferrara, a Reagan era, Republican hack who was on the Jack Abramoff payroll to write op-ed pieces favorable to Abramoff clients.

Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

Here's a tip, Jack. When you cite something that is obviously nonsense, you might want to do a little fact checking on the source.

 

[pinkballoons]

Perhaps you are right. It lead to the 1929 Great Depression. And people still advocate it... why can't libertarians learn from past mistakes?

What? I don't know if your are serious or not but the Great Depression happened because of a governmentally established agency, i.e. the Federal Reserve who, along with the government generated booms through easy money and credit, inevitably resulting in a bust.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I see, now there's a problem with Forbes Magazine. I know it's a bit of work, but if you have an issue with the facts cited by the publication, take issue with them and refute them. That's the way discussion works.

The problems seems to be that conservatives don't understand the difference between an op-ed piece, with blatant lies and falsehoods in them, and a publication "citing facts".

As I mentioned above, the Op/Ed author Peter Ferrara's assertion and anyone who believes such nonsense is nuts! Lest I need to remind anyone that Peter Ferrara is guilty of accepting money from convicted felon Jack Abramoff to author favorable Op/Ed pieces on behalf of Abramoff's former clients. Ferrara even went on to say, "I do that all the time. I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."

In the tripe he penned in your quote, he (and you) claim the recession starting in July 1990 was a result of the tax increase of 1990, which is impossible, give then tax increases weren't even passed until November 5, 1990 to go into in the 1991 year. That tax bill didn't include funding for a time machine to go back in time to create a recession before the taxes were increased.

Nearly every economist worth a hill of beans, cites the 1-2-3 punch of the 1986 Tax Reform (you know when Reagan was still in office), the resulting financial meltdown of the S&L scandal, and the Kuwait-Iraq War.

This is why I remind everyone why so many so-called Republicans suffer cognitive dissonance. When the facts don't prove what you want to see, you just make things up.

 

[maxpowr9]

What a pile of tripe as usual.

The problem is pissing away trillions based on the illusion that you can spend yourself rich through war.

You learn this in economics 102 (aka intro to macroeconomics) that war/military is one of the worst economic multipliers. You make weapons, use them and then what? I somewhat speculate that we are fighting ourselves in the middle east through selling weapons to those countries. I remember very well that during the Egypt riots, it was noted that the tear gas cans being used by police said "proudly made in the USA".

And not having reasonable levels of taxation for corporations and the wealthy.

We need more taxation across the board but specifically focused on the wealthy and corporations. If a company is turning a profit, they do not need subsidies.

And pigging out on 'cheap' toys made in third world countries.

While I agree that the US needs to get back to its manufacturing roots, I don't think there is anything really wrong with buying foreign goods no matter how crappy they are. We just need to edge our net import/export closer to zero instead of always being negative (the last US trade surplus was 1975 )

It has nothing to do with the Democrats or social programs. The crisis started during the spend like whores on a holiday Republican years.

As with the first quote, war is not economically feasible nor sustainable growth. However the blame is not the Republicans alone. Both parties want to spend money they don't have, just on different things. I still laugh at Republicans who want to turn away infrastructure projects (one of the great economic multipliers).

One of the basic things some people might want to learn as a new skill is economics 101 for dummies.
If some could even be bothered to look at other western countries, they might see that it is possible to have publicly funded healthcare and social security programs while still managing to emerge from the Wall Street created recession fiasco.

Yeah economics like finance is a decent life skill to know especially if you want to get into politics. Just once I would love to see a congressperson who actually knows how the economy works instead of convoluted psychobabble. The last paragraph leaves me a bit weary though. The problem is with our taxation rate, it is not possible to support many public programs. Note the difference in the tax rates between the US and those "other western countries" (especially as a % of GDP) to see why.

 

[maxpowr9]

He did that only after being forced to after the circumstances. Hoover called FDR the radical, and called everything he stood for as radical. He ran in 1932 as one who said private measures would be preferable. You're wrong on all counts, but I guess facts get in the way of when you're discussing thiings.

He's not a socialist in any sense of the world.

Ron Paul is the the libertarian and he advocates the gold standard.

Talk about splitting hairs and distorting facts. But I guess that's what Libertarians do best. Cover their own faulty, destroyed and ruined reputation...

Honey, as a supposed person studying political science (an oxymoron onto itself) I would assume you would have a better grasp at what Libertarians actually believe in instead of what some talking head says. Ron Paul may have some "Libertarian" values (as I feel both parties do), he is far from your typical Libertarian and has very anachronistic view points on how the US Government should operate. The gold standard ship sailed, sank and probably will never be excavated. The fiat standard or "intrinsic value" is what is in. I frankly do not believe in worshiping lustrous metals (which is essentially fiat money to begin with if only more durable than paper currency).

 

[jackoroe]

What a load of horseshit. Reaganomics is one of the major culprits in our current economic catastrophe. Your citation is complete bullshit. You cite Peter Ferrara, a Reagan era, Republican hack who was on the Jack Abramoff payroll to write op-ed pieces favorable to Abramoff clients.



http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

Here's a tip, Jack. When you cite something that is obviously nonsense, you might want to do a little fact checking on the source.

Good Lord! Bloomberg! That fucking rag! I wouldn't line my birdcage with that! See, I can feign outrage too.

The issue at hand isn't whether Mr. Ferrara wrote anything favorable to Jack Abramoff clients. Frankly, who cares if he did? I could care less if he gave Abramoff a blowjob in Macy's window. He made a series of factual assertions in his article, and not one has been so much as refuted as being false by means of a legitimate citation.

We seem to have struck a nerve with our friends on the left. All we have are attacks on the publication and personal attacks on the author. I guess we'll have to assume the story to have been true.

Now I'll give you a tip. When you cite something as being nonsense, bring more than your opinion.

 

[JB3]

He did that only after being forced to after the circumstances. Hoover called FDR the radical, and called everything he stood for as radical. He ran in 1932 as one who said private measures would be preferable. You're wrong on all counts, but I guess facts get in the way of when you're discussing thiings.



He's not a socialist in any sense of the world.



Ron Paul is the the libertarian and he advocates the gold standard.



Talk about splitting hairs and distorting facts. But I guess that's what Libertarians do best. Cover their own faulty, destroyed and ruined reputation...

Good lawd. Sweety, next time you post something, actually do some research before you do it.

 

[frankfrank]

You learn this in economics 102 (aka intro to macroeconomics) that war/military is one of the worst economic multipliers.

I can think of a worse multiplier in macroeconomics, than dumping trillions into warfare.

HINT: One of the major political parties is doing what they can to use that blunt economic instrument against nearly all of us, and parts of it are being done by both major U. S. political Parties, though there are decades of recent history that show how ineffective it is for making the economy robust.

SPOILER: Highlight the blank space below.

Give beaucoup money to corporations and the richest 2%, via tax cuts, corporate welfare, and other programs that favor them.

 

[MoltenRock III]

He made a series of factual assertions in his article, and not one has been so much as refuted as being false by means of a legitimate citation.

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/allied/2004_maui/legal_ethical_regulatory_issues/14.pdf

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/review/1993/93-2_34-48.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession

http://www.stanford.edu/~rehall/Macro Theory Recession 1993.pdf

http://recentrecession.com/recession/recession-1990.html

 

[pinkballoons]

Talk about splitting hairs and distorting facts. But I guess that's what Libertarians do best. Cover their own faulty, destroyed and ruined reputation...

No

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_banking
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

[Text: Removed by Moderator] Seriously. Pick up a book

 

[maxpowr9]

Wikipedia?

Um what?

Why don't you post an argument, then we can have some discourse.

I remember during my undergrad days when someone tried to use wikipedia as a legitimate source and the professor scoffed at them saying that "How the fuck does Bank of America have COGS (Cost of Goods Sold)"? Even high school teachers do not accept Wikipedia as a source of academic information (TY Maggie Giglio). You know better than that. Ron Paul is not mainstream Libertarian as much as he tries to convey and this was back in 2009 when I had to hear the rants of Ron Paul from a classmate early Friday mornings and the professor (a U of Chicago doctorate) tell him that he was basically off his "wagon wheel".

If you want to know the truth about me, I am actually registered as a Democrat (both of my parents are Independent/Unenrolled), if only for the support of gay marriage/rights. I still have strong beliefs in the Libertarian Party. Meh, if you want to go into a bit of detail about my personal life/income and why I may vote the way I do, you can PM me and I will be more than glad to have a discourse with you.

 

[maxpowr9]

@GiancarloC

I somewhat understand your PoV on life. I admit that I was basically born with a platinum spoon up my fat ass during Young & Restless (somehow my mom reconciled me spending $150 at the packie today). At least in Mass., even if you are registered to a particular party, you can vote for any candidate. I said in another topic that I was proud of the fact that I voted for Scott Brown in 2010 (I stated my reasons why). I think my upbringing has a lot to do with why I side with Libertarians than any of the "mainstream" parties but I don't think anyone knows/cares about it here on JUB.

 

[palemale]

Good Lord! Bloomberg! That fucking rag! I wouldn't line my birdcage with that! See, I can feign outrage too.

The issue at hand isn't whether Mr. Ferrara wrote anything favorable to Jack Abramoff clients. Frankly, who cares if he did? I could care less if he gave Abramoff a blowjob in Macy's window. He made a series of factual assertions in his article, and not one has been so much as refuted as being false by means of a legitimate citation.

We seem to have struck a nerve with our friends on the left. All we have are attacks on the publication and personal attacks on the author. I guess we'll have to assume the story to have been true.

Now I'll give you a tip. When you cite something as being nonsense, bring more than your opinion.

In my opinion, Jack, the sun will rise tomorrow. Would you like a citation to prove my opinion true?

Nothing in Ferrara's pissant blog posting merits the effort of finding a citation to refute it, it is so obviously a load of bullshit. Assuming his factual assertions are true, so what? American history is full of examples of a boom a bust cycle that decimated the lives of millions of people. Reagan rejected Keynesian economics, which gave us the longest period of sustained, stable economic growth and a stable middle class for what, boom and bust capitalism. Ronald Reagan is one of the dumb asses we can thank for the current economic crisis we find ourselves in. To believe otherwise is delusional. Of course, you are a Republican apologist, and we know how delusional they are.

 

[JB3]

In my opinion, Jack, the sun will rise tomorrow. Would you like a citation to prove my opinion true?

Nothing in Ferrara's pissant blog posting merits the effort of finding a citation to refute it, it is so obviously a load of bullshit. Assuming his factual assertions are true, so what? American history is full of examples of a boom a bust cycle that decimated the lives of millions of people. Reagan rejected Keynesian economics, which gave us the longest period of sustained, stable economic growth and a stable middle class for what, boom and bust capitalism. Ronald Reagan is one of the dumb asses we can thank for the current economic crisis we find ourselves in. To believe otherwise is delusional. Of course, you are a Republican apologist, and we know how delusional they are.

Good grief. Deep breaths Palemale.

 

[Kulindahr]

He did that only after being forced to after the circumstances. Hoover called FDR the radical, and called everything he stood for as radical. He ran in 1932 as one who said private measures would be preferable. You're wrong on all counts, but I guess facts get in the way of when you're discussing thiings.

I knew you'd make that claim.

But... FAIL. Almost half the things on that list were items he recommended before he was president.

He's not a socialist in any sense of the world.

To more than a few libertarians he was -- anyone who advocated government work programs gets counted a socialist.

Ron Paul is the the libertarian and he advocates the gold standard.

So we only have one libertarian in the world? Fascinating!

Talk about splitting hairs and distorting facts. But I guess that's what Libertarians do best. Cover their own faulty, destroyed and ruined reputation...

It's easy to make that claim when you set up a straw man to attack. So far, you haven't demonstrated a single thing about libertarianism and the Great Depression...
except that you have no idea what it means to be libertarian.

 

[Kulindahr]

I remember during my undergrad days when someone tried to use wikipedia as a legitimate source and the professor scoffed at them saying that "How the fuck does Bank of America have COGS (Cost of Goods Sold)"? Even high school teachers do not accept Wikipedia as a source of academic information (TY Maggie Giglio).

What's strange about that is that more than once it has been shown that Wikipedia is as sound as Britannica for the most part. It's easy to filter out the undependable, too: any article marked as in need of attention in any way, from "by an expert" to poorly organized, is not a good choice for citing.

Fair enough. I used to be a libertarian, but abandoned it completely.

So you DO believe that people are property.

 

[pinkballoons]

Wikipedia?

Um what?

Why don't you post an argument, then we can have some discourse.

I thought it might be more prudent to go back to basics because it is obviously beyond you that the Federal Reserve was responsible for the Great Depression. The crash in 1929 was followed by, what, 5 years (?) of reckless credit expansion. Even before that, in the years 1819–1820, 1839–1843, 1857–1860, 1873–1878, 1893–1897, and 1920–1921, the government had been responsible for artificially generating booms through easy money and credit and in each case, an inevitable bust followed.

The initial crash is the bursting of an unsustainable bubble caused by inflation of the money supply. The fact that it lasted so long is due to government efforts to revive the economy, including protectionism, price fixing, public works projects and deficit spending.

 

[palemale]

Good grief. Deep breaths Palemale.

I assure you JB3 I was calm and relaxed when I typed that. Had had a good meal and nice bottle of wine. On the other hand, maybe the raw oysters had made me a little passionate.