Re: Doonesbury Feb 2008 - last week

On 4 Mar 2008 12:49:49 GMT, Dann <detox665@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 03 Mar 2008, Pat O'Neill said the following in news:d58a983b-6af3-
4fb0-87e9-19e4f68241eb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 3, 12:54 pm, Detox <detox...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Briefly, as it appears that Pat has plonked me. His choice. We'll
have to see if he responds to this message...or to someone else's
reply...to know for sure.


I haven't plonked you. I responded where I did because I thought it
was appropriate.

My apologies for suggesting otherwise.

I note that Dann has not responded to my observation that comparing
the 1929-42 Depression to any previous ones is nigh on impossible,
because of the change to a globally connected economy in the first
third of the 20th Century.

You are certainly correct to point out that this was a depression that
acted on a global scale and that it was the first time that such an
event had occured.

What about that condition should cause the Hoover/Roosevelt economic
'medicine' to work where it would obviously fail in a more localized
depression?


It wouldn't necessarily make it "work" in terms of ending or
shortening the Depression. Probably nothing--short of the war that
actually did--could have done that. (BTW, the thing about that war
that ended the Depression was MASSIVE government spending and MASSIVE
government-sponsored jobs creation, far more extreme than anything FDR
could have passed in even a Democratic Congress absent the war. Want
to say something again about how government action never solves
anything?) But FDR's actions DID lighten the load for the most
oppressed...by giving them SOME form of income to see them through the
worst.

I don't know that I've ever said that government action never solves
ANYthing. Just that is isn't the magical elixir capable of solving
EVERYthing.

I absolutely agree that war spending led our country out of the
Depression. However in that case we were spending money on hard goods
that were of use and letting the free market resolve how things flowed
from there.


Uhhh, no; war spending is the worst kind of spending, the "goods"
have very limited use, are literaly wasted in most of said use, and
become obsolete with obscene speed.

The best investment spendingwise is always in the infrastructure;
the aforementioned Grand Coulie Dam and most of the TVA dams still
function with great results. Roads, bridges, aqueducts, sewage
sytems, dams, levies, these are what serve the largest sector of the
population, and have the biggest long-term benefit. Perhaps
construction of an aqueduct system from the rain-blessed Pacific
Northwest to the Southwest would have been more impetus to get us out
of the Depression, notwithstanding WWII . . .

As for the free market, it has little impact in war, where the
rules tend to be turned upside down. If there really was free market
impact, the Soviet Union should have had the worst weapons, when quite
the opposite was true. The T-34 was not just the only credible Allied
match for Germany's Panzers, but ended up a model for all future tanks
(yes, including the M1 Abrams); the Il-2 was arguably the best assault
plane of the war, boasting thicker armor than WWI tanks (British
observers flatout called it "the flying tank), and a powerful
cannon-wielding, rocket-launching punch that had German soldiers
simply calling it "Der Schwarze Tod" . . . "The Black Death."


I'd also ask him this--if it was only the actions of the FDR
administration that prolonged the Depression in this country, why
did it last equally long in Britain and other industrialized
nations, where no such moves were made?

Primarily because it was considered de rigueur amongst economists and
other thinkers of the day to adopt socialist programs and command
economies as the cure to economic evils. This faulty thinking led to
the rise of some of the nastier dictators in history that dominated
WWII a decade later.

Please see my comments regarding what about the war and war-related
spending actually ended the Depression.

Please see mine where I noted that most of the world's major powers were
using the same basic economic 'medicine' to fight the global depression.
Regulation and higher taxes _cause_ economic distress. They don't solve
it.


I like to consider regulation and taxes the leashes that keep the
capitalist beast in check; unchecked, the economy becomes a
rollercoaster with ever-deeper valley to accompany the peaks.
Sometimes a smooth-but-steady climb is the best course . . .


Had he stayed the course with his original campaign promise to let the
market sort things out, we would have led the world out of the Depression
instead of joining them in wallowing in it for a decade.


Well, "staying the course" with Hoover's failed policies was a
guarantee for more grief, so when the time came for real action, he
knew he had to apply the heavy dose of the medicine many were not
gonna like initially, but would have to get used to . . .


When the world needed free trade, free markets, and a sound tight
money policy, it instead got tariffs, over-regulation, and government
borrowing in every corner.

It could certainly be argued that it was exactly that kind of laissez-
faire approach to the economy that led to the conditions that
triggered the Depression...IOW, the stock market balloon fueled by
unregulated investing that burst
in October of '29. And, once you had a Depression, the only thing "a
sound tight money policy" would do is drive more people out of work,
as businesses found it more and more expensive to expand.

I think if you read all of my posts in this thread, you will see where I
have given FDR credit for making banking and investment reforms precisely
for the reasons suggested above. He did pretty well as a war leader as
well.

And some of his other polices [i.e. elements of the WPA] weren't
necessarily bad ideas given the problems of the time. [Yes, I've read
Reflex's response.]


Uhhh . . . nice to see I haven't been killfiled?


I also hope you will notice that I haven't criticized his backing of
labor unions. Sometimes employers get the employees [and the unions]
they deserve.


Well, considering unions are perhaps the biggest reason for the big
middle class of the 1950s; we'd had big economic growth before, just
never a means for the masses to secure the wealth . . .


The policies I criticize are those attempts to nationalize industry via
regulation and federal intervention with respect to welfare. Neither of
those powers is granted the federal government in the Constitution. And,
IMO, it can be successfully argued that any short term benefit is out
weighed by the long term negative effects of federal spending and
regulation over the ensuing 70 years.

Simply put, we didn't have an inflation problem before FDR, but we've had
70 years of constant inflation since. IMO, government spending and
regulation are the primary source of inflation. [recent increases in oil
prices being duly noted as a short term source of inflation]


Here's the thing, deflation is far worse than inflation; mild
inflation goes unnoticed, mild deflation leads to recession; severe
inflation can cause some economic woes, sever deflation is what
happened in 1929. Sounds like more to be grateful to FDR for . . .



None of this makes FDR [or his advisors] evil. Just wrong on the
subject of economics.


But right on the subject of relieving human suffering.

If his policies caused the Depression to last much longer [as I believe
they did], then his policies caused far more human suffering than they
relieved. I also believe that we will remain divided on that point.


If we're going by "believe," I could throw unicorns in here, but
that might be overkill . . .


<grin>


--
- ReFlex 76

- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"

- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"

- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FDR
    ... We entered the depression on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929. ... to claim that FDR took us into war to get the economy ... the Japanese with no provocation. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: ToE Attacked at Anti-Tax "Tea Party": "Burn the Books!"
    ... far more to do with Eisenhower being a war hero than it had with any ... upturn of the world economy to end the Depression. ... On the other hand, it seems to me that un-free dealings with Germany, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: FDR
    ... We entered the depression on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929. ... to claim that FDR took us into war to get the economy rolling is the most revisionist thing I ever heard! ... the Japanese with no provocation. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Iraq War is starting to drag the US economy
    ... The Iraq war could cause the loss of500,000 jobs after ten years of war spending, and crimping overall economic output by $60 billion a year. ... And while the burden on the nation's overall economy is currently fairly small, the longer term effects of redirected investment and restricted borders could hurt the country's competitiveness. ... This is extra money for the war, above and beyond the Pentagon's regular budget of about $450 billion, which accounts for about a sixth of the government's overall 2007 spending of about $2.8 trillion. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: depression
    ... Great Depression of the 1930s, ... their central government their banks will crumble and their dollar ... "We have tried spending money. ... The stock market by no means predicts the economy. ...
    (misc.survivalism)