What I am telling you is that making these wide-ass generalizations about "government spending" and "world war two" is bullshit.

Things always happen for a huge number of unique reasons. You need to show direct evidence that one caused another you can't just try to imply causation just because they happened in the right order.

I'll give you an example:

2004 - New Orleans is full of crime and "voodoo"
2005 - Katrina hits NO.

Oh. My. God.

The Lord is CLEARLY PUNISHING THESE HEATHENS

get out of here with your non-sequiturs dude

Actually Thucy the causation is well established and seems to be something your mediocre education missed.
I'm sorry you are embarrassed and feel the need to vent, but whatever works for you.
If you want a bibliography of economists who imply the same "causation just because they happened in the right order" let me know.
You seem to think I pull these ideas out of my ass, but in fact I research them from published scholars.
A published scholar Thucy. Do you know what that is?

Thucy, I'd love to hear your explanation of why Paul Samuelson's prediction that he presented to FDR in 1943 didn't come true.
I know you don't have one though.
#1 you are ignorant of the specific subject and have never read the opposing viewpoints in your life.
#2 you are too busy writing essays in hollow rhetoric about America's inevitable decline because you have nothing else more important going on in your life in Austin.
#3 you believe the human brain simply can't fathom such things because life is theater and all intellectual explanations of historical causation for economic events are "fallacy"
#4 You don't get enough attention and have just like to rant without ever doing anything of real consequence.

"Published scholars" like Betsy McCaughey right?

@goldfinger -- You actually site government spending during the Great Depression as soemthing positive? By any rational historical account, the government spending *prolonged* the problem. We didn't get out of it until World War II...You need a better lesson in history, my friend.

Lmao god damn Tettleton you're our best new troll of 2011. I salute you.

"Prolonged" the problem by reducing unemployment from 25% to 15% and launching a historic recovery which has never been matched in the early-mid 1930s. The spending during the depression was not that much, but you conservatives never respond to actual data which has already been cited a couple of times.

I'm not even in Austin by the way.

"I hate to break it you, Ahab, but the GOP is jsut as much to blame for this mess." The problem isn't with either "party" per se....the problem is with "Liberalism" versus "Conservatism". John F Kennedy, by today's standards, would be a fiscal Conservative. Yes....BOTH "parties" are to blame. But if you examine history through the application of policy, not party, it is easy to see that one policy wins.

Bill Clinton had a booming economy....so the narrow-minded say "Look....democrats are good for the economy", but they fail to examine that it was the Republican led tax cuts and policy changes that caused the positive change. BOTH parties were involved in this decision....so which party is responsible? Neither "Party" is responsible....because parties have constantly evolving ideology. But in the case of Clinton, :"Conservative" ideaology ruled the day, and Conservative ideology shaped the policy.

People need to stop affiliating with one party or another and become Principled...and vote for whoever it is that espouses your principles, instead of walking into a booth and pulling a lever for a party.

Putin....the problem with the "spending" in the Great Depression ws that is produced *nothing* long term. Taxing people and taking their money to do work projects may keep people employed...but I don't see those projects going on any more, do I? Why? Because they are unsustainable. Eventually you have to have a private market that ADDS VALUE to capital, which NO government project ever does. I know....this is a concept that is well beyond your comprehension, so I won't go into it any further, except to say this....World War II got us OUT of the depression using government spending because the government spending shifted from useless, idiotic make-work projects to investment in industry and science and technology....VALUE ADDING investments that provided new consumer products that capitalism took advantage of after the war.

I know...I know....too much for you to grasp. reality is difficult for you, I know.

@ Gunfighter

I realize that, but its the closest thing we have for guidance at this moment. I did mention what you are talking about though when I mentioned fiscal "space" which is basically the proportion of our debt to GDP.

@ Tettleton

Just curious here, what is your background? You seems extremely interested in business and economics. Just out of plain curiosity, how old are you, what is/was your major (if you are in/graduated from college), and what school of thought to you follow with economics? I'm more to the side of Austrian rather than New Keynesian. You seem to be classical though.

@ krellin - see my first post in this thread, it addresses the Great Depression a little.

But you are both right and wrong. There were many useless programs in the Great Depression, yes, but it was meant to jump-start the private sector again. People feel like shit when they're unemployed, so it got the country's morale up and put money into people's pockets again so they could buy goods and services once more. But also many value adding projects were completed. The Hoover Dam, TVA and countless other infrastructure projects were undertaken and are still used today by this country. Now, it didn't provide new products, but it increased the standard of living across the nation.

Still, you are right in the sense that these vast fiscal expenditures are not sustainable and were never meant to be permanent. The purpose of these programs is to get the economy back up and running, and then wean them off of the assistance. They never should be permanent.

As to the tax cuts, I really would hesitate to give one policy change the sole responsibility for causing a decade of the greatest economic growth the country has seen. There are so many factors that went into that, that I wouldn't give anything sole credit, though the tax cut certainly did help, I won't argue that.

The problem is the economists classify tax cuts as deferrals of payment, with consumers expecting a future increase in taxes and saving up for that eventuality.......such utter bullshit which reflects a disconnect from reality that I was ashamed to learn of this past year in my Macro course.

@ Tettle

Just read your bit on unemployment. I want you to go onto the treasury website (I think its Dept of Treasury) and look up statistics on unemployment rate and %change in GDP. Graph them. Now look at the recessions. For every single recession in this nation's history, unemployment has peaked after the recession troughed. It is a well known phenomenon and has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a stimulus. Your stats prove this.

no response from Tettleton....wow, that's a first

@Goldfinger....you don't "jump start the private sector" by having people dig ditches. You know, my parents actually live on a piece of land that has a tiny little stream in it that was built by a WPA project. I will give the project THIS much credit....they increased the value of this piece of dirt my parent's bought. But....how did a bunch of guys with shovels digging a long ditch stiumulate the private sector>? answer....NADDA. it didn't.

Now I do agree that the Federal government is probably the best equipped to build infrastructure, since infrastructure crosses state lines, and therefore needs larger oversite. I don't think anyone can ever find a post where I say Federal Highways are bad, for example. That being said...Obama used this *concept* to bait the american people in rebuilding he infrastructure....and it never happened. In fact, he recently joked about it on camera....

Now that the infrastructure is built, it should be turned over to the respective states in which it lies. Why do I need the Feds to maintain I-75 in Michigan, when it is in Michigan's best interest that I-75 be in good shape for travel? Why should I send money to the federal government, so they can run it trough the hands of beurocrats, who will then return a SMALLER portion of that money to my state and tell us to fix the highway. And, by the way, WE in the state have to bid out the job and oversee it. In other words....the only purpose of the Federal Government in maintaining my local highways is to make that maintenance MORE EXPENSIVE because the money for repairs must first flow through a NON-value-adding Federal Bureaucracy....THAT is insanity.

Now krellin I understand what you're saying here. Economic prosperity is measured on the amount that a society produces - GDP. Transfer payments (such as social security and Medicare) are not included in GDP. The point of many of these projects wasn't to build things (though it easily could have been changed to different projects that would produce more tangible benefits, I can give you that). The point was to give men a job, keep them busy 8 hours a day, and put money in their pocket.

It was basically a handout in principle, but the way they did it 1) made GDP go up and 2) Made those who now worked on government projects feel better about themselves. I mean back then there wasn't any social security so it was either work or tell your wife you can't provide for her and the kids. I'm not close to becoming married yet, but I don't think any guy wants to say that to his wife.

So this did two things, it improved the morale of the American people, lowered unemployment, and stopped GDP from falling. Consider that from an investing standpoint. You're sitting on a bunch of cash that you have left after the stock market crash and thousands of bank failures. You don't want to invest that money anywhere, because the economy is still shit, unemployment is increasing, and you can't trust anywhere to put it. Now with these programs though, you are getting injections of money into the economy, deflation has stopped, and unemployment is decreasing. A much brighter economic prospect, no? I mean, with deflation (like there was) its better to sit on your money than put it anywhere. Once that ended, banks could start upping interest rates a bit by bit (which had been at practically 0% since 1929) and more importantly, more money meant more money people could put in banks and more money that could be lent out to investors who wanted to build the private sector. I simply don't think the private sector had enough to revive itself. If it did, why didn't it recover from 1930-1932? That's three years.

I do agree though, that Obama hasn't held up to his promises on rebuilding infrastructure. It is mostly his fault, but not 100%. I remember reading an article where they were trying to build a high speed rail in Florida from Miami to somewhere, but they weren't able to buy the land. Again, mostly, but not solely his fault.

And I agree with you in concept of shifting responsibility from federal to state governments. I'm all for that. I also agree that doing it the way it does lets the Bureaucracy skim some money away. BUT, Congress will never do this because they use highway funding as leverage to get states to pass the laws they want, and state legislatures won't do it because they'll be voted out of office for raising taxes to cover it!
Again, politics gets in the way of the better solution

"Why? Because they are unsustainable. Eventually you have to have a private market that ADDS VALUE to capital, which NO government project ever does. I know....this is a concept that is well beyond your comprehension, so I won't go into it any further, except to say this."

As has already been mentioned, I don't see private contractors going out of their way to rebuild bridges and other infrastructure that the New Deal improved through the WPA and CCC. They closed down because they were no longer needed. I fail to see how that makes the government inefficient or ineffective. The fact is the New Deal induced a massive, unprecedented recovery in a short period of time. If a Republican administration had the record FDR did, they'd be gloating about it 100x more than they do about Reagan.

And what is the government supposed to do when the private sector won't use their capital to invest in new production, new projects, etc? Sit on its hands? The reason the government gets involved is because the private sector's ability to sustain economic growth over the long term is very inadequate. If the private sector could manage this on its own we wouldn't have booms and busts.

And there are many New Deal programs that lasted far and beyond the New Deal.

""People need to stop affiliating with one party or another and become Principled...and vote for whoever it is that espouses your principles, instead of walking into a booth and pulling a lever for a party."

Party de-alignment leads to the death or at least the decline of a functional democracy. Alignments are necessary for stable politics. Anyway parties are organizations dedicated to particular principles, so I fail to see how strong party identification is "unprincipled". Look up any country that has experienced significant de-alignment, it doesn't bode well for the political process. The greater the number of independents the greater the problems.

Effects of de-alignment

1 - Personality centered campaigns, rise in influence of special interest groups
2 - Lower turnout. Who mobilizes voters? Parties do.
3 - Lack of a coalition structure. If you're not organized into parties there's no need to build durable coalitions.
4 - Increasingly divided government & volatile shifts in governmental composition from election to election

"Party de-alignment leads to the death or at least the decline of a functional democracy. Alignments are necessary for stable politics."

+1 Putin
There is room for independents but we need parties, and compromise is a necessary aspect of politics.

Our democracy survived just fine when the Federalist party disappeared. The 1824 election was wide open. I guess the 19th century has to be completely ignored for the statement that alignments are necessary for stable politics. Whatever stable politics means. It's such an ambiguous meaningless phrase after all.

Interesting data at the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 Statistical Abstract.
The excel spreadsheets show that in 2010 the percentage of health care utilized by individuals with the lowest co-pays, mainly those of Medicare and Medicaid, are over 8 times larger than those of patients who cash out of pocket to meet a deductible.

The fact that Medicare and Medicaid patients do not know the price of the services they receive and do not pay for the vast majority of services they receive leads them to overuse their services compared to people with high deductible policies who are fully aware of the cost of their services and have to pay directly for the majority of those services up to the limit of their deductible.

Funny how markets work and the runaway cost of American medical care is directly at the feet of government supervised medical care.

Here is the link to the census data.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_expenditures.html

Nevermind that the march to civil war followed immediately after the dissolution of the Whig Party. The Whigs had held together a loose coalition of groups across sectional lines. It's elimination meant that in 1856 the South was already calling for secession.

"Funny how markets work and the runaway cost of American medical care is directly at the feet of government supervised medical care.
"

Too bad price inflation is far lower for Medicare and Medicaid than it is for those on private HMOs.

"Funny how markets work and the runaway cost of American medical care is directly at the feet of government supervised medical care."

This isn't even true. But then again you provide a wealth of untrue statements. Medicare doesn't cover dental care, long-term care, or eye doctor visits. You need supplementary coverage for that. Medicare Part B costs $115 a month. Hospital visits cost $1132. At least under OBAMACARE (omg) now people on Medicare can get free checkups and preventive screenings.

Medicare has higher customer satisfaction than any private HMO, by far. It also has 1/10th the overhead costs. That's called government efficiency and private sector inefficiency

Anyway the examples of the 19th century should be properly called realignment, not de-alignment, but they do illustrate that the dissolution of a party system creates a period of instability. Monroe got away with it because of the war of 1812. But elections quickly became messy in 1824.

>>>> I'm curious when someone uses a term like "Liberal" to describe advocates of large government. Tettleton, how would you classify someone who believes in Federal balanced budgets, a regulated free market, gay marriage recognized by the government, an EPA that is empowered to ensure clean air and water, and encouraging a global free market. Is that a "Liberal" or a "Conservative"? Was President Bush (wasn't TARP started on his watch) a "Liberal"?

Indy, I would classify someone like you described as out of touch with reality.
What is a "regulated" free market. That's like saying dry water.
EPA, an unelected agency given enormous power to act arbitrarily in the name of clean air and water to regulate the lives of hundreds of millions. Sounds "Feudal" to me as in having nothing in common with democracy at all.
The EPA encouraging a "global free market." Totally nonsensical.
A free market represents volunteering exchanges between individuals.
If you want to post to me in this thread I started it is entirely your choice. If I choose to reply it is entirely my choice. That's a free market. No coercion. Using the word regulation with free market is simply nonsensical.
Where do we have a free market? That is the question. We have instances of market based behavior, but free markets are few and far between.
We should teach our children Caveat Emptor before almost anything else and the world would be much better off.
Gay Marriage. I vote for it every single time it comes up. Two consenting adults should be able to do as they please, but I think the EPA will soon find a way to regulate marriage in the name of clean air and water.

@Indy, Americans usually mean left of centre when they say liberal, and not liberal in the classical liberal sense.

"Academic economists don't have a dog in the fight and can spew useless rhetoric like the Sophists they truly are.
Business economists working for banks, insurance companies, multinational corporations, and the like have a dog in the fight and find themselves unemployed rather quickly when their forecasts prove inaccurate."

Oh my lord...
So being an interested party makes them a more valid point of view. They also can find themselves unemployed quite quickly if they disagree with their employer

"Interesting data at the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 Statistical Abstract.
The excel spreadsheets show that in 2010 the percentage of health care utilized by individuals with the lowest co-pays, mainly those of Medicare and Medicaid, are over 8 times larger than those of patients who cash out of pocket to meet a deductible." - Yes...or perhaps this is just because people on Medicare and Medicaid are sick more often than other people. Correct me if I'm wrong but Medicare is for the elderly right? It is a well known fact that elderly people require a significantly higher amount of health care than younger people. The same is true of impoverished people (who are covered by Medicaid) there are a slew of diseases and medical conditions associated with long term poverty.

SantaClausewitz,
I will supply an example to illustrate my point.
I an economist working for McDonald's says that an increase in the minimum wage will lead to the hiring of fewer unskilled teenagers, and an economist at MIT shows date from a computer model that disputes the McDonald's economist's claim I would give more weight to the McDonald's economist.
Reason #1 being that the McDonald's economist works in the business everyday and can be fired tomorrow if his analysis proves faulty.
Reason #2 The UCLA economist can say anything he likes because he has tenure and won't lose his job or retirement if he is wrong. Also the UCLA economist is directly payed by a government bureaucracy and would be predisposed to agree with reasoning of another government bureaucrat who raised the minimum wage to begin with.