User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 58

  1. #31
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    No one is asking you to support and condone liberal policy. It's just a list. What are conservative political scientists suppose to do when they are asked the question? Try to give an accurate and objective opinion, not refuse to answer.
    Thank God I am not a conservative, then.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #32
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Thank God I am not a conservative, then.
    What type is most likely to not answer simple questions? Anarcho-capitalist?

  3. #33
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    What type is most likely to not answer simple questions? Anarcho-capitalist?
    I cannot answer your question. How am I supposed to do that? I am horrified by most of the things that the federal government does. I would basically be picking what eras were the most pleasant by presidential administration. That is not "success" to me. I can make some judgments as to which POTUS was better when contrasting two, but I can't do what you are asking. First and foremost, I want my government leaders to protect my freedom and to respect my rights. I gave you five who did relatively good jobs.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #34
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    What got us into and out of the Gread Depression?
    Into the depression is relatively simple - a large scale collapse of the stock market led to reduced spending and a downward spiral. Lower demand for everything led to fewer jobs, etc. etc. I don't believe this is contested ground, although the cause of stock market collapse and the macroeconomic causes are heavily debated. You won't get a solid answer, ever, to those questions.

    What got us out of it was simply the reintroduction of demand for goods, which led to reduced unemployment etc. etc. until it returned to norm. Again, what prompted that is up for debate, and you won't get a solid answer, ever, to those questions.

    The current financial climate is somewhat different. Whereas in the 1930s you could get money, but no one would spend it, here we are talking about liquidity trap where people cannot get money (including the banks and companies). In that sense, the two are not quite comparable.

    What is likely to fix the situation is a recovery in the overall market - that is, employment, goods and all that related stuff - and the reintroduction of liquidity in the market. Unforunately, the main source of the expansion has come from bubbles - the real estate market this time. While that is a topic on its own, the bottom line is that people were using the housing equity to feed the economy, which made it burn red-hot. A lot of people were working, causing a lot more money to circulate. That won't happen again, and housing prices are likely to deflate for some time yet.

    So, as far as I can tell, this is just a relatively normal contraction, if a deep one due to the size of the bubble. The real concern is/was the bank failures, and going forward, better regulation on them. There are lots of scenarios that could make things way worse (ie: not regulating the banks properly, more liquidity traps, reduced foreign investment, etc.)...

    The government clearly believes that by injecting liquidity (ie: replacing the real estate equity bubble money), the contraction will be shorter. How effective that would be depends on your POV.

    In general consensus, the New Deal and the like helped reduce the impact of the great depression. I tend to agree, due to the timing of the recovery of GDP and the general theory that I have read. I also don't find the arguments in the Austrian school convincing (pdf warning - Rothbard).

    I'm not really into debating the whole thing but thought I would try to bring it somewhat more on track.

  5. #35

    Default

    I found this time-line that is in support of the Keynsian position:

    Timeline of the Great Depression

    Can anyone refute or corroborate the actual data (GDP growth, unemployment rate, maybe even dates of events--though I have a fair amount of confidence in the dates, since they match what I know)?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #36
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I found this time-line that is in support of the Keynsian position:

    Timeline of the Great Depression

    Can anyone refute or corroborate the actual data (GDP growth, unemployment rate, maybe even dates of events--though I have a fair amount of confidence in the dates, since they match what I know)?
    One of the main problems is that unemployment had peaks and troughs throughout the depression, but mostly stayed in the high teens. I don't know how one can claim FDR's policies worked when nearly 20% of the country was still unemployed through it all and WW2 ended up being the main driver for production and job growth.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    One of the main problems is that unemployment had peaks and troughs throughout the depression, but mostly stayed in the high teens. I don't know how one can claim FDR's policies worked when nearly 20% of the country was still unemployed through it all and WW2 ended up being the main driver for production and job growth.
    Yes. There was also a second recession in the 1937-1938 time frame. I am not claiming that FDR was a success. Just trying to corroborate that the numbers are indeed accurate.

    Nevertheless, the general trend of the GDP (besides the wiki link that ptgatsby posted) is corroborated in the tables kept by the government:
    BEA National Economic Accounts

    They used GDP (probably back calculated), whereas the first article used GNP.

    Also, I found another site with similar unemployment numbers.
    Overall Unemployment Rate in the U.S. Civilian Labor Force, 1920–2007 — Infoplease.com
    (According to this data, there was a steep drop in unemployment between 1940 and 1942. Was really it war preperations, or would spending of any sort have done that trick?)

    It would also be interesting to see Sweeden's numbers during the great depression, since it is claimed that they followed Keynes's advice much more and (supposedly) achived a faster turn around.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #38
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    It would also be interesting to see Sweeden's numbers during the great depression, since it is claimed that they followed Keynes's advice much more and (supposedly) achived a faster turn around.
    This isn't my area of expertise, obviously, but my understanding is that it is the monetary policy that is given credit here... notably the removal of the gold standard. Given that, you should be able to find a relationship between gold standards being given up and the total contraction from that point forward, as countries did it at different times.

    IIRC, and my grandfather remembers correctly too (he's Danish), scandinavia was among the first to give up the gold standard. Likewise, I know the US repriced gold... don't remember if it was part of the New Deal, but the time period was similar, so I imagine it is connected.

    So, what I do know confirms this. A quick google confirms this. And the attached paper supports it, from their point of view. This is all topical searching, however.

    Edit: After reading the paper in detail, I pretty much could just of posted it instead of writing anything <_< It covers what I said entirely.
    Last edited by ptgatsby; 06-08-2009 at 09:58 PM.

  9. #39

    Default

    The data does seem to show that inflationary monetary policy ended the slide in GDP, but unemployment is a different story.

    The U.S. went of the Gold Standard (according the first source I linked) fairly early as well.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #40
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    This isn't my area of expertise, obviously, but my understanding is that it is the monetary policy that is given credit here... notably the removal of the gold standard. Given that, you should be able to find a relationship between gold standards being given up and the total contraction from that point forward, as countries did it at different times.

    IIRC, and my grandfather remembers correctly too (he's Danish), scandinavia was among the first to give up the gold standard. Likewise, I know the US repriced gold... don't remember if it was part of the New Deal, but the time period was similar, so I imagine it is connected.

    So, what I do know confirms this. A quick google confirms this. And the attached paper supports it, from their point of view. This is all topical searching, however.

    Edit: After reading the paper in detail, I pretty much could just of posted it instead of writing anything <_< It covers what I said entirely.
    Yes, I believe the price of gold was set at 30 USD until Nixon ended it. There was a lot of experimentation on the gold standard and the price of gold during FDR's early years in office. I'm sure somebody here knows when they stopped that and adopted a sound system.

Similar Threads

  1. [Other] Missunderstood and other things.
    By lorkan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-18-2015, 06:40 AM
  2. Macbook Battery And Other Issues
    By Haphazard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-26-2010, 04:51 PM
  3. [Other] Craigslist (and other) ads?
    By INTPness in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-28-2009, 07:46 PM
  4. Abortion, gay rights, and other social issues.
    By Angry Ayrab in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 11:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO