Downturns of the past

As Boris said the "the usual suspects" are loaning us the money. China, Russia, and countries in the middle east. I had heard that China is backing out on buying more T-bills and some fellas in Russia are thinking about cashing out...both of which would create massive inflation with these trillions and trillions we just keep printing and handing out.

Here is how much we are printing...http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?chart_type=line&width=1000&height=600&preserve_ratio=true&s[1][id]=AMBNS#
 
So print a bunch of bills. Don't tell anyone though. Hire 100,000 "secret shoppers" (aka create jobs New Deal style). And plant them across the U.S.

Instruct them to buy houses, cars, BUSINESS JETS, nifty hats, and bread at the grocery store.

They may go to ballgames as well, as such is American.
 
slushie said:
So print a bunch of bills. Don't tell anyone though. Hire 100,000 "secret shoppers" (aka create jobs New Deal style). And plant them across the U.S.

Instruct them to buy houses, cars, BUSINESS JETS, nifty hats, and bread at the grocery store.

They may go to ballgames as well, as such is American.
Click to expand...

:banghead::banghead::banghead: If only it was this simple.
 
slushie said:
So print a bunch of bills. Don't tell anyone though. Hire 100,000 "secret shoppers" (aka create jobs New Deal style). And plant them across the U.S.

Instruct them to buy houses, cars, BUSINESS JETS, nifty hats, and bread at the grocery store.

They may go to ballgames as well, as such is American.
Click to expand...

There are two ways to study unemployment during the Great Depression - one method counts workers in the WPA as "employed" and one counts them as "unemployed". Either method shows that the New Deal didn't really have a great effect on employment. Unemployment averaged (depending on which method you subscribe to) between 14%-17% from 1932-1938 with number decreasing dramatically as war production picked up, finally bottoming out in 1944 and 1945 at around 1.8%. So, the New Deal didn't really create jobs. The New Deal really expanded the executive powers of the President, as well as started us on a course toward the welfare state. Some will say "things were still bad, but they would have been much worse without it". This is the same logic that says "Bush kept us safe after 9-11 because we weren't attacked again". The answer to both questions is "maybe, maybe not". Can't really prove the contrary because that is not the course that was taken. The same will apply to this stimulus package. It probably won't help things a lot, but people who are in support will say "yeah, but it would have been much worse without it" - maybe, maybe not. No way to ever know. Another interesting parallel is the role Hoover, as FDR's predecessor, played in making the New Deal happen. Hoover instituted the largest government spending spree that we had known to that point, and made it easier for FDR's package to win approval. This is like W's TARP plan and how spending the $750b probably made Obama's stimulus plan easier to pass.
 
WacoFan said:
There are two ways to study unemployment during the Great Depression - one method counts workers in the WPA as "employed" and one counts them as "unemployed". Either method shows that the New Deal didn't really have a great effect on employment. Unemployment averaged (depending on which method you subscribe to) between 14%-17% from 1932-1938 with number decreasing dramatically as war production picked up, finally bottoming out in 1944 and 1945 at around 1.8%. So, the New Deal didn't really create jobs. The New Deal really expanded the executive powers of the President, as well as started us on a course toward the welfare state. Some will say "things were still bad, but they would have been much worse without it". This is the same logic that says "Bush kept us safe after 9-11 because we weren't attacked again". The answer to both questions is "maybe, maybe not". Can't really prove the contrary because that is not the course that was taken. The same will apply to this stimulus package. It probably won't help things a lot, but people who are in support will say "yeah, but it would have been much worse without it" - maybe, maybe not. No way to ever know. Another interesting parallel is the role Hoover, as FDR's predecessor, played in making the New Deal happen. Hoover instituted the largest government spending spree that we had known to that point, and made it easier for FDR's package to win approval. This is like W's TARP plan and how spending the $750b probably made Obama's stimulus plan easier to pass.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute Waco, the New Deal had a positive effect on unemployment. FDR took office in 1933, which had the highest rate of unemployment, 24.9%. By the following year it dropped to 21.7%. In fact, these are the numbers from the US department of Labor:

1933: 24.9%
1934: 21.7%
1935: 20.1%
1936: 17.1%
1937: 14.3%
1938: 19.0%
1939: 17.2%
1940: 14.6%
1941: 9.9%
1942: 4.7%

But the unemployment rate dropped by over 10% by 1937, which had nothing to do with WWII buildup. Granted it was still high, especially by today's standards, but that's because today's standards are measuring a different number. At that time, someone who becomes frustrated and ceases looking for a job was listed as "unemployed". Today, someone who gives up looking for a job is no longer listed as officially "unemployed" (the reasoning is that they aren't looking for a job). The difference between numbers between then and now is typically 5-10% for that reason alone. So if you figure 10% off of the 1937 number, you're at a 4.6% unemployment rate, based on the way we currently calculate it.
 
fish314 said:
Wait a minute Waco, the New Deal had a positive effect on unemployment. FDR took office in 1933, which had the highest rate of unemployment, 24.9%. By the following year it dropped to 21.7%. In fact, these are the numbers from the US department of Labor:

1933: 24.9%
1934: 21.7%
1935: 20.1%
1936: 17.1%
1937: 14.3%
1938: 19.0%
1939: 17.2%
1940: 14.6%
1941: 9.9%
1942: 4.7%

But the unemployment rate dropped by over 10% by 1937, which had nothing to do with WWII buildup. Granted it was still high, especially by today's standards, but that's because today's standards are measuring a different number. At that time, someone who becomes frustrated and ceases looking for a job was listed as "unemployed". Today, someone who gives up looking for a job is no longer listed as officially "unemployed" (the reasoning is that they aren't looking for a job). The difference between numbers between then and now is typically 5-10% for that reason alone. So if you figure 10% off of the 1937 number, you're at a 4.6% unemployment rate, based on the way we currently calculate it.
Click to expand...

Unemployment peaked in 1933, with gradual decline in all years until 1937, which suffered a recession causing 1938 to peak at 19% or so unemployment. So, taking a snapshot of 1933 to 1938 would show a decress in unemployment from 24% to 19% - a five percent improvement. Now, there was of course a steady decline from 1933 to 1937 then the sharp spike up. But, overall - 1933 minus 1938 is 5%.

I would hesitate to follow your argument regarding comparing how they counted it then to how they counted it now - it is a little like comparing Babe Ruth with a modern ballplayer and there are too many variables that I probably don't know.
 
WacoFan said:
I would hesitate to follow your argument regarding comparing how they counted it then to how they counted it now - it is a little like comparing Babe Ruth with a modern ballplayer and there are too many variables that I probably don't know.
Click to expand...


Eh, I doubt Babe was on 'roids. The guys today, I doubt they AREN'T on 'roids.

As for the unemployment rate, the absolutely ignore people that have been laid off or lost their jobs and aren't looking for work. They don't consider them part of the work force. The kids that are out of college and haven't found a job yet? Also not part of the work force.
 
Pilots who were payed as "independent contractors" when they shouldn't have been...also not counted (or eligible!)
 
I'm a little late, but on the point of the next Depression, I'm inclined to doubt that it will ever happen. I think the safety valve of late 20th Century neoliberal markets will kick in, namely a reversion to state corporatism or what some call socialism even though that is a highly incorrect label. There are too many vested interests to allow a Depression to occur. But who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top