- This topic has 50 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
donaldduckmoore.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 5, 2008 at 4:44 PM #14084October 5, 2008 at 4:53 PM #281492
Arraya
Participant“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.” — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
October 5, 2008 at 4:53 PM #281769Arraya
Participant“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.” — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
October 5, 2008 at 4:53 PM #281773Arraya
Participant“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.” — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
October 5, 2008 at 4:53 PM #281815Arraya
Participant“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.” — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
October 5, 2008 at 4:53 PM #281827Arraya
Participant“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.” — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
October 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM #281527patientrenter
ParticipantI think there is a real difference between the time of the Great Depression and now. Amongst our nation’s economic and political leaders, there is little reluctance to print and spend more money, in huge amounts if necessary, in response to recession. Back in the early 1930’s, many were reluctant.
Ultimately, we need real changes that cannot be avoided:
1) Greater US resources devoted to producing goods and services that the rest of the world wants.
2) Lower US consumption of foreign goods and greater US savings rates
But we can certainly avoid, by printing and spending money, large-scale unemployment and GDP declines as in the Great Depression. The people employed may be digging and filling holes in the ground, producing little or no real economic value, but they will be “employed” and the GDP will appear to be higher as a result than it would otherwise be. (It won’t really be, of course.) It might well lead to more real economic waste, because it will give less incentive for people to get any job they can in export or import-substitute activities, but politically-driven intervention is like a tax on the real economy, and we will have to pay some of that tax one way or another.
October 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM #281804patientrenter
ParticipantI think there is a real difference between the time of the Great Depression and now. Amongst our nation’s economic and political leaders, there is little reluctance to print and spend more money, in huge amounts if necessary, in response to recession. Back in the early 1930’s, many were reluctant.
Ultimately, we need real changes that cannot be avoided:
1) Greater US resources devoted to producing goods and services that the rest of the world wants.
2) Lower US consumption of foreign goods and greater US savings rates
But we can certainly avoid, by printing and spending money, large-scale unemployment and GDP declines as in the Great Depression. The people employed may be digging and filling holes in the ground, producing little or no real economic value, but they will be “employed” and the GDP will appear to be higher as a result than it would otherwise be. (It won’t really be, of course.) It might well lead to more real economic waste, because it will give less incentive for people to get any job they can in export or import-substitute activities, but politically-driven intervention is like a tax on the real economy, and we will have to pay some of that tax one way or another.
October 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM #281808patientrenter
ParticipantI think there is a real difference between the time of the Great Depression and now. Amongst our nation’s economic and political leaders, there is little reluctance to print and spend more money, in huge amounts if necessary, in response to recession. Back in the early 1930’s, many were reluctant.
Ultimately, we need real changes that cannot be avoided:
1) Greater US resources devoted to producing goods and services that the rest of the world wants.
2) Lower US consumption of foreign goods and greater US savings rates
But we can certainly avoid, by printing and spending money, large-scale unemployment and GDP declines as in the Great Depression. The people employed may be digging and filling holes in the ground, producing little or no real economic value, but they will be “employed” and the GDP will appear to be higher as a result than it would otherwise be. (It won’t really be, of course.) It might well lead to more real economic waste, because it will give less incentive for people to get any job they can in export or import-substitute activities, but politically-driven intervention is like a tax on the real economy, and we will have to pay some of that tax one way or another.
October 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM #281850patientrenter
ParticipantI think there is a real difference between the time of the Great Depression and now. Amongst our nation’s economic and political leaders, there is little reluctance to print and spend more money, in huge amounts if necessary, in response to recession. Back in the early 1930’s, many were reluctant.
Ultimately, we need real changes that cannot be avoided:
1) Greater US resources devoted to producing goods and services that the rest of the world wants.
2) Lower US consumption of foreign goods and greater US savings rates
But we can certainly avoid, by printing and spending money, large-scale unemployment and GDP declines as in the Great Depression. The people employed may be digging and filling holes in the ground, producing little or no real economic value, but they will be “employed” and the GDP will appear to be higher as a result than it would otherwise be. (It won’t really be, of course.) It might well lead to more real economic waste, because it will give less incentive for people to get any job they can in export or import-substitute activities, but politically-driven intervention is like a tax on the real economy, and we will have to pay some of that tax one way or another.
October 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM #281862patientrenter
ParticipantI think there is a real difference between the time of the Great Depression and now. Amongst our nation’s economic and political leaders, there is little reluctance to print and spend more money, in huge amounts if necessary, in response to recession. Back in the early 1930’s, many were reluctant.
Ultimately, we need real changes that cannot be avoided:
1) Greater US resources devoted to producing goods and services that the rest of the world wants.
2) Lower US consumption of foreign goods and greater US savings rates
But we can certainly avoid, by printing and spending money, large-scale unemployment and GDP declines as in the Great Depression. The people employed may be digging and filling holes in the ground, producing little or no real economic value, but they will be “employed” and the GDP will appear to be higher as a result than it would otherwise be. (It won’t really be, of course.) It might well lead to more real economic waste, because it will give less incentive for people to get any job they can in export or import-substitute activities, but politically-driven intervention is like a tax on the real economy, and we will have to pay some of that tax one way or another.
October 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM #281581peterb
ParticipantSome economic historians think this is more like the crash of 1873 or 1825…or even 1907. Those were huge credit bubble burst. But all basically depressions.
October 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM #281859peterb
ParticipantSome economic historians think this is more like the crash of 1873 or 1825…or even 1907. Those were huge credit bubble burst. But all basically depressions.
October 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM #281863peterb
ParticipantSome economic historians think this is more like the crash of 1873 or 1825…or even 1907. Those were huge credit bubble burst. But all basically depressions.
October 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM #281904peterb
ParticipantSome economic historians think this is more like the crash of 1873 or 1825…or even 1907. Those were huge credit bubble burst. But all basically depressions.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
