 |
| |
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
Let's look at some causes of the Depression:
*Poorly diversified economy with an overreliance on a handful of industries, two main industries being autos and radio, when those 2 go down, there is nothing left to prop them up
*Misappropriation of wealth leaving power in rich hands and their confidence, their confidence goes and investment and spending with it
*Lax credit rules and overspeculation (which the GOVERNMENT later put caps on) that led to a run on money that didn't exist
*Weak Eurocom economies unable to afford expensive US goods. The US lends them billions of dollars but they have to spend most of it buying our goods
The government can mainly be blamed for two things:
1) High tariffs and isolationism on Eurocoms with devastated economies who couldn't afford to buy expensive American goods
2) Letting the bottom out of the agriculture market
So what we have here is a wide range of factors in which the government plays a very large role and can share the blame but to say that it CAUSED the Depression is stretching it.
Hey berzeker, you know Coolidge passed several tax
cuts in the twenties, thus keeping the government
from "stealing" more of our money, yet that seemed
to contribute to the problem of wealth misappropration.
Ironic, eh?
"As Richard pointed out, most people don't want to take care of themselves. "
In addition to being a hypocrite, I'd add pretentiousness to your lists of adjectives. 
 Attachment: pimp.gif
This has been downloaded 186 time(s).
Last edited by Ted Striker on 16-01-2002 at 17:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Snowfire - quote:
DF, how can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional? You can say you don't like the 14th Amendment. You can say it goes against the principles this country was founded under. You cannot, however, say you are a strict constructionist under the Constitution... "but" one bit.
Unless you're trotting out some tired argument about it being not part of the Constitution because they forgot to dot an i or cross a t in the ratification process, of course. |
The 14th Amendment failed to get 3/4ths of the states for ratification, I'd hardly call that dotting the i's.
Ted - quote:
The government can mainly be blamed for two things:
1) High tariffs and isolationism on Eurocoms with devastated economies who couldn't afford to buy expensive American goods
2) Letting the bottom out of the agriculture market |
You forgot the monetary policy mistakes.
quote:
So what we have here is a wide range of factors in which the government plays a very large role and can share the blame but to say that it CAUSED the Depression is stretching it. |
A wide range of factors with the ones linked to government being the primary causes. Would the Depression have resulted from only those "non-governmental" factors? I don't think so...
quote:
Hey berzeker, you know Coolidge passed several tax cuts in the twenties, thus keeping the government from "stealing" more of our money, yet that seemed to contribute to the problem of wealth misappropration. Ironic, eh? |
He also raised tariffs. And can you actually prove tax cuts added to the problem? Nooooo...
quote:
In addition to being a hypocrite, I'd add pretentiousness to your lists of adjectives. |
Given the fact you never proved the first charge, I can't wait for your BS attempt to prove the second. You've argued that we need all these social programs because so many people need help, so it's quite funny to now see you accusing me of being pretentious for claiming most people won't take care of themselves.
If they could, we wouldn't need government handouts, doh. Can you find room in your mouth for both feet? I also find it interesting that you didn't bother accusing Richard of being pretentious when he said most people won't take care of themselves. You've succeeded in polluting yet another thread with your hypocrisy. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ted - quote:
It seems like you have alot to more to prove to yourself than just this little aside on the big, bad, evil government out to rape and steal from us all! Anyway... |
"Prove to myself"? Try to make some sense, boy.
quote:
The Revenue Act of 1926, lowered both Federal income taxes and inheritance tax and favored wealthy businessmen. (That whole trickle-down theory). They received a disproportionate break in tax over the average person, further contributing to the gap between rich, middle class and poor, and putting more money in fewer hands. |
Geez! When the income tax was passed, proponents said it would only be imposed on the rich and never go above ~ 10 %. Within a decade the rate was enormous, but only imposed on the "rich". Poor people weren't even paying an income tax so obviously any reduction in tax rates would not effect them. This isn't proof tax cuts caused the Depression. If it was, we should have had an even worse depression a few years earlier when there was no income tax. 
quote:
Which is what I already mentioned before as monetary policy. |
"Monetary" policy was our reference to the Fed, not income taxes.
quote:
But I am shore glad he got that money out of the evil gubments hands!!! It created alot of jobs!!! |
Government doesn't create jobs, it merely shifts money around.
quote:
Your last argument still makes no sense. |
Let's see:
quote:
You've argued that we need all these social programs because so many people need help |
These would be people who won't take care of themselves.
quote:
so it's quite funny to now see you accusing me of being pretentious for claiming most people won't take care of themselves. |
If I'm "pretentious" for observing the fact most people won't take care of themselves, aren't you also pretentious for claiming we need all these social programs to take care of people who are apparently not taking care of themselves?
Understand now? DUH!
quote:
You are claiming people can't find work just because they are lazy and unwilling to work. |
I never said that.
quote:
When what you don't realize is that they often lose their jobs through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. |
The number of people who simply cannot take care of themselves because of factors beyond their control is relatively few. Most people can take care of themselves but most won't if politicians are handing them money stolen from others.
quote:
ps, did i mention you were a hypocrite? |
Yes, and I'm still waiting for proof supporting this accusation. Roland just shredded your ecomomic arguments and you did exactly what you've repeatedly done whenever someone shoots down your fictions - you ignored him.
Are you going to respond to my point about how welfare has increased out of wedlock births or not?
Last edited by Berzerker on 16-01-2002 at 19:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
"Poorly diversified economy"
Why did the railway bust not create a great depression ?
"Misappropriation of wealth leaving power in rich hands"
Robber barons, recessions - why no great depression there ?
"Lax credit rules and overspeculation"
19th century booms and busts, no credit rules at all and lots of overspeculation (land, railroad...)
"Weak Eurocom economies unable to afford expensive US goods."
In the 19th century the situation was reversed as the US was the debtor - didn't turn recessions into great depressions. |
YES, these factors DID lead to the Depression.
The point here is that there are ALOT of factors contributing to the Depression, you can't just single out the government as the one and only factor.
Okay Roland, to reverse your position, the recent bubble was one of the biggest in history, yet I see no Depression and even further still, we are already climbing out of our light recession (though I know you will probably dispute that).
Could it be that having a diversified economy had helped out?
Government services that have buffered displaced workers?
A strong middle and questionably a lower class, with a nice distribution of wealth that doesn't leave all the power in rich investors hands?
Stricter banking and credit regulations that have kept the bottom from falling out?
Where is the Depression NOW? As YOU have pointed out in the past, monetary policy now is nearly the same as it was back then, YET THERE IS NO DEPRESSION RIGHT NOW.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
As for you berzeker, you are living in a fantasy world outside of the lines, one based on your own idealized delusion.
You advocate eliminating the minimum wage.
You advocate eliminating unemployment, welfare, social security and medicare.
To sum up, you're a laisse faire wannabe economist, and that's a theory that never has nor never will work. When left as a free running system, things go haywire, and vulnerabilities to extremes is left exposed. That's why we have things like monetary supply, to ease the wakes and troughs in the cycle to keep it from swinging too wildly. When misapplied, yes they can do more harm than good, but when conservatively applied, they can and HAVE worked well.
There are things like anti-trust acts which were implemented BY THE GOVERNMENT for a reason, yes to prevent railroad meltdowns like the one Roland mentioned. To distribute power and diversify the ecnomomy, TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PRICE FIXING/GAUGING and SHITTY LOW WAGES.
These are all programs that have been created over the last 100 years, the people of this nation and its leaders have had to the wisdom to not only create programs, but leave them intact.
As for your claim of welfare creating more out of wedlock births, that's BS, because what you have FAILED TO RECOGNIZE is that out of wedlock births HAVE INCREASED FOR EVERY SINGLE RACE, INCOME LEVEL AND MARITAL STATUS.
In all these programs, there are several billion dollars worth of programs that people are dependent upon. And so your solution is to eliminate them and everything will be fine. Your reasoning, "the government is stealing our money and people are too lazy."
And your answer to filling a HUGE vaccuum left behind:
"Charities and 'job makers' will fill the void."
I'm glad you have this well thought out. I'll appoint you as the Transitional Director for our new economic model. Gimme a break!!! 
It's called pooling resources for the greater good, (not STEALING, sensationalist) because NOBODY can exist in a void on their own.
Last edited by Ted Striker on 17-01-2002 at 04:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--" you can't just single out the government as the one and only factor."
As I said the first time, it was the government that turned a mild-to-moderate recession into the Great Depression.
--"Could it be that having a diversified economy had helped out?"
It probably does, but I fail to see how this can be credited to the government.
--"Government services that have buffered displaced workers?"
Government services that have created a class of people dependant on government support.
--"A strong middle and questionably a lower class, with a nice distribution of wealth that doesn't leave all the power in rich investors hands?"
A large portion of the middle class are investors...
And, again, something that his little to do with government.
--"YET THERE IS NO DEPRESSION RIGHT NOW."
Monetary policy has been pretty much the same (ie. incredibly dumb) for the past eighty years. Back then it was still a shock, going from something actually close to a free market into this mess. We've largely adjusted to it, and would actually be operating fairly well if the government didn't constantly change the details of the rules. Compliance with all the minor changes is a big drain.
--"To sum up, you're a laisse faire wannabe economist, and that's a theory that never has nor never will work."
As far as it has been implemented, it has worked. The periods of the greatest overall economic growth have pretty much coincided with the periods of greatest economic freedom.
--" the people of this nation and its leaders have had to the wisdom to not only create programs, but leave them intact."
Social Security was, by FDR, meant as a temporary program, to be ended as soon as possible. How is it wise to extend the life of such a Ponzi scheme?
--"In all these programs, there are several billion dollars worth of programs that people are dependent upon."
And I really wish you would think about the consequences of statements like this. Yes, you are perfectly correct, and this is exactly the thing I'm afraid of. You seem to think this is, if not a good thing, then perfectly acceptable. I find it something to be very worried about.
--"It's called pooling resources for the greater good, (not STEALING, sensationalist)"
Taking money from people by force is stealing, whoever is doing it.
Wraith
"Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others."
-- Edward Abbey
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
 |
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
As for you berzeker, you are living in a fantasy world outside of the lines, one based on your own idealized delusion.
You advocate eliminating the minimum wage.
You advocate eliminating unemployment, welfare, social security and medicare.
To sum up, you're a laisse faire wannabe economist, and that's a theory that never has nor never will work. |
It would work fine if we also abolished class society.
quote:
There are things like anti-trust acts which were implemented BY THE GOVERNMENT for a reason, yes to prevent railroad meltdowns like the one Roland mentioned. To distribute power and diversify the ecnomomy, TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PRICE FIXING/GAUGING and SHITTY LOW WAGES. |
Their origonal implementation was actually used to attack unions.
quote:
It's called pooling resources for the greater good, (not STEALING, sensationalist) because NOBODY can exist in a void on their own. |
One can pool rescources voluntarily, it need not require force.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
chegitz - quote:
There is another alternative, which those opposed to minimum wage consistently fail to recognize, and which businesses almost always choose; take a short term profit hit instead of laying people off or raising prices. Eventually they get that profit back as more money in people's hand's means that more of their products are getting purchased. |
And this profit hit means fewer jobs because profit is one way businesses re-invest thereby creating jobs.
quote:
Every increase in the minimum wage has resulted in a corresponding increase in jobs. |
The fact jobs might increase can be attributed to other factors without pointing to a forced wage increase. If this logic was valid, wouldn't increasing the minimum wage to $10 + an hour create an economic boom? I know someone who lost their job because of a minimum wage increase, they aren't unique. The fact is jobs have increased quite a bit since the 1980's with only 2 or 3 small increases in the min. wage. Claiming these increases created more jobs ignores the job creation rate due to an expanding economy. The relevant question becomes: did the min. wage increase create more jobs than the economy was creating already? If jobs were being created at 1 million a year and following a min. wage increase, at 1/2 million, claiming the min. wage increase created jobs is false.
quote:
My father constantly complains everytime there's an increase in minimum wage and says he'll just have to lay some people off. The fact is, he can't get people to work for him at minimum wage as it is, and generally has to pay higher than min wage to get something close to full staffing. Most min wage jobs are sh*tty service sector jobs that no one wants to work anyways (cuz they're only min wage). |
Listen to your father  If minimum wage increases effect only minimum wage workers, why do unions constantly push them? Because they have the effect of pushing up other wages, including union wages.
Wraith - quote:
Taking money from people by force is stealing, whoever is doing it |
Ted has bought into the lie that "government" doesn't steal when it does the same thing thieves do. Of course, being a liberal requires both acceptance of this lie and the never ending attempts to rationalize away the fact they are no better than the people they call the cops on for stealing their money without "government" help. Ouch!
Ted - quote:
As for you berzeker, you are living in a fantasy world outside of the lines, one based on your own idealized delusion. |
Umm...which "delusion" would this be? That stealing is wrong and freedom is moral?
quote:
You advocate eliminating the minimum wage. |
Yes, I don't have the moral authority to put a gun to your head to force you to exchange your time and labor at rates I like.
quote:
You advocate eliminating unemployment, welfare, social security and medicare. |
Yup, neither do I have the moral authority to steal money from others to pay for what I want.
quote:
To sum up, you're a laisse faire wannabe economist, and that's a theory that never has nor never will work. |
I just believe in freedom and morality. I could care less if your "system" works better or not at achieving your goals. And what kind of "wanna-be economist" are you? Hypocrite! As for your claim that laisse faire has never worked, do you deny that the western world took off economically over the last few centuries as economic freedom increased? Your claim lacks proof, in other words, just another unsupported statement you would have us accept as the gospel truth.
quote:
When left as a free running system, things go haywire, and vulnerabilities to extremes is left exposed. |
And economies involving billions of interactions are far too complex for a handful of people elected by people like you to run even assuming you were put here to run our lives.
quote:
When misapplied, yes they can do more harm than good, but when conservatively applied, they can and HAVE worked well. |
Is this an admission that a mis-application occured before the Depression? If so, what's so wonderful about your ideology when it caused so much tragedy? Your argument here applies to most "systems" including Nazism. They all work rather nicely when not abused.
quote:
There are things like anti-trust acts which were implemented BY THE GOVERNMENT for a reason, yes to prevent railroad meltdowns like the one Roland mentioned. |
By putting those word in bold, you're assuming I care. I don't! If the RR's "meltdown", then they meltdown (assuming you even know what you're talking about, an assumption I won't accept after all your BS!).
quote:
To distribute power and diversify the ecnomomy, TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PRICE FIXING/GAUGING and SHITTY LOW WAGES. |
Well now, if these laws were enacted following the 1870's because of the RR "meltdown", why didn't they diversify the economy 40 or 50 years later before the Depression? If you don't like the wage someone is offering, WALK AWAY! How liberals can keep a straight face when telling others they believe in freedom is amazing, talk about a fantasy world!
quote:
These are all programs that have been created over the last 100 years, the people of this nation and its leaders have had to the wisdom to not only create programs, but leave them intact. |
All meaningless rationalizations and generalizations. The "people" did not make these laws, some people did and some opposed them. And the fact some people steal from others does not prove it wise, moral or anything else other than that some people steal from others, and that many more will steal if the risk is removed.
quote:
As for your claim of welfare creating more out of wedlock births, that's BS, because what you have FAILED TO RECOGNIZE is that out of wedlock births HAVE INCREASED FOR EVERY SINGLE RACE, INCOME LEVEL AND MARITAL STATUS. |
About time! Now, JUST HOW DO OUT OF WEDLOCK BIRTHS INCREASE AMONG MARRIED PEOPLE? Think a bit more before typing! Welfare programs are not designed for just some races and not others (except for some Indian programs), so claiming they have increased for all races doesn't prove anything other than a possible link between welfare and an increase in out of wedlock births, doh. That leaves only income, and don't even try to claim out of wedlock birthrates have increased among the wealthy as much as among the poor. TRY AGAIN!
quote:
In all these programs, there are several billion dollars worth of programs that people are dependent upon. |
MANY people! And many of these people have more children out of wedlock introducing them into poverty (oh yeah, you really care). at a much higher rate than people not on welfare. And it isn't "several billion", it's several hundred billion! Roughly half the federal budget - if not more - is devoted to "entitlement" and welfare programs, and that doesn't even include the state programs.
quote:
And so your solution is to eliminate them and everything will be fine. |
Never said everything would be "fine" as you define the term. Making people dependent on government promotes dependency, not self-sufficiency. Oh yeah, those long dead white guys did after all produce a document called "The Declaration of Dependence".
quote:
Your reasoning, "the government is stealing our money and people are too lazy." |
I never said people were lazy and I asked you to stop putting words in my mouth. I agreed with Richard that most people won't take care of themselves - in that they are quite willing to vote themselves other people's money. Thieves are not necessarily lazy, just thieves.
quote:
I'm glad you have this well thought out. I'll appoint you as the Transitional Director for our new economic model. Gimme a break!!! |
No thanks, I won't work for an a$$hole.
quote:
it's called pooling resources for the greater good, (not STEALING, sensationalist) |
Translation: give us your money or die.
quote:
NOBODY can exist in a void on their own. |
Translation: we exist to pay for what you want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
Hypzerker,
You are oversimplifying the situation.
You analysis of, "just walking away," is incorrect. Back in the day, certain companies controlled EVERYTHING. That's why the anti-trust legislation was passed, because mostly railroads were in charge of everything, not just the railroads themselves. They could gauge prices, pay workers shitty wages, because there was no competition around to hire workers who wanted a choice of another employer. Basically in your own words, they wanted "freedom" to get another job. The government came in a broke up the trusts to give those workers other options.
You couldn't just "walk away" when everything in your town and the surrounding area is owned by the railroad. So therefore they are setting low prices, since nobody else is hiring, they can pay you whatever they wanted to.
Regarding the welfare mothers you are STILL incorrect. You say government programs are the sole contributors to increased out of wedlock. There are several factors that could contribute to this trend. One being a cultural impact.
Back in the day, a woman had a child out of wedlock, and she would be scorned by the whole town. You couldn't even say, "pregnant" on tv because it was a dirty word. People are more promiscuous, and it is more acceptable to be a single mother.
Even so, you have absolutely zero proof of a correlation between out of wedlock births and government programs. And in fact, removing those programs would do more harm than good.
Kids living in poverty has more to do with kids having kids. When a teen gets pregnant, dropping out of school, there is no chance of raising that child with an acceptable income. Yeah, guy, the teen really had getting government money in mind when getting pregnant.
"Basically, there are policies and programs in other industrial nations that ensure children against poverty better than those in the U.S.," said Neal Bennett, for the National Center for Children in Poverty.
Once again proving you a hypocrite for asking for burden of proof from others, yet supplying none of your own.
Hypocrite.
Also saying people won't take care of themselves and calling them lazy is the exact same thing.
Last edited by Ted Striker on 17-01-2002 at 12:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
The following is from 1996, a time which we had just endured a recession and government benefits were needed most.
==========================
From San Francisco Chronicle, A-23 December 11, 1996
BOB HERBERT
Memo to Pols:
'The Safety Net Delivers'
AGAIN AND AGAIN during the fight over welfare we heard self-righteous, sanctimonious and often very rich politicians proclaim that anti-poverty programs hadn't worked. The programs were actually arming the poor, they said. Echoing Dickens' most unforgiving villains, they reasoned that the best approach would be to cut the poor's already meager benefits. That would build character, they said. So they cut the benefits and called it reform.
On Saturday, in his radio address, President Clinton reaffirmed his solidarity with those who believe that removing a plate of spaghetti from the dinner table of a hungry child is somehow beneficial.
From his wobbly perch atop the tower of national virtue, the president spoke of his "moral obligation" to help the poor help themselves. "The door has now been opened to a new era of freedom and independence," Clinton said, an apparent reference to the sense of liberation that the well-off have always associated with bare cupboards and eviction notices.
In any event, the message of the president and others is quite clear: It is time to take the scissors to the safety net.
From another quarter --- more in touch with the real world --comes a study that shows how important government programs continue to be in helping Americans escape the dangerous and demoralizing grasp of poverty.
The study was done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and its findings are not ambiguous: "Based on analysis of recently released Census Bureau data, this paper shows that federal and state anti-poverty programs have lifted millions of children and disabled and elderly people out of poverty. Many of those who remained poor were significantly less poor than they would have been without government assistance."
The study found that without such assistance, 57.6 million people would have been poor in 1995. "But when benefits are counted, including food stamps, housing assistance, school lunch support and benefits provided through the Earned-Income Tax Credit, the number of poor people drops to 30.3 million."
Safety net programs, especially Social Security, held the poverty rate among the elderly in 1995 to 9 percent. Without them, the study said, the elderly's poverty rate would have been 50 percent.
Among children, means-tested programs, including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, have the biggest effect. The study said: "The safety net programs reduced the child poverty rate from 24 percent before benefits are counted to 16 percent."
The lead author of the study, entitled "The Safety Net Delivers," was Wendell Primus, a former assistant secretary of health and human services who left the Clinton administration in protest when the president signed the welfare bill.
Primus and his co-authors took a close look at two recent periods: the early 1980s, when government anti-poverty benefits were substantially reduced, and the mid-'80s to mid-'90s, when bipartisan efforts to increase government assistance and expand the Earned-Income Tax Credit strengthened the safety net.
Recessions occurred during both periods. The study found that when benefits are taken into account, "The number of people who were poor grew by 11 million during the recession of the early 1980s but by only 5.5 million during the recession of the early 1990s. Poverty grew far less during the most recent recession because the safety net was considerably stronger in the early-1990s."
In other words, the programs worked.
But we now have, for the poor, the toxic combination of Bill Clinton in the White House and the Republican Party in control of Congress. The next recession will provide tremendous opportunities for character-building. (N.Y. Times Service)
BUT I GUESS WE CAIN'T TRUSS THIS INFARMASHUN BECUZ IT COMMIN FROM THA GUBMENT, HUH HYPZERKER?!?!
Last edited by Ted Striker on 17-01-2002 at 12:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
Ted:
"The point here is that there are ALOT of factors contributing to the Depression, you can't just single out the government as the one and only factor."
Separate them. Economic factors and/or government mismanagement lead to a recession. Government ineptitude caused the great depression.
"the recent bubble was one of the biggest in history"
Yup.
"yet I see no Depression and even further still, we are already climbing out of our light recession (though I know you will probably dispute that)."
The US will look like Japan until around 2005, but then it should be back to normal (and I'm still sceptical trend growth is much above 2.5 %).
Not every bubble ends in a great depression. It has some nasty hangover (UK Lawson boom, german reunification boom, Japan inc boom....). Now, if we had not only an artificial government fested boom going bust, but also budget cuts, a crumbling credit system (that is still to come in the current bust, btw) where the Fed shuts out banks, nutty tariffs and a total collapse of the international economic system, we could have great depression all over again. As an econ terrorist, Greenspan is much more effective than Bin Laden.
"Could it be that having a diversified economy had helped out?"
Diversified ? How much more diversified than 1929 ? On what aggregates ?
"Government services that have buffered displaced workers?"
See above.
"A strong middle and questionably a lower class, with a nice distribution of wealth that doesn't leave all the power in rich investors hands?"
The 1920s were a great time for the middle class. Just too much debt. Just like today.
"Stricter banking and credit regulations that have kept the bottom from falling out?"
LOL!
Reckless reliquification at any cost by the Fed, rather than regulation. Also easier with pure fiat money than a semi-gold standard. The regulatory side has pretty much collapsed. And the worst excesses are outside the banking system this time.
"As YOU have pointed out in the past, monetary policy now is nearly the same as it was back then, YET THERE IS NO DEPRESSION RIGHT NOW."
Not quite. In creating a bubble and cutting rates in the downturn, it is parallel. On the pumping side (or aggressiveness, if you want), there is a huge difference. Besides, the other factors (fiscal etc) are not destructive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--" That's why the anti-trust legislation was passed, because mostly railroads were in charge of everything, not just the railroads themselves"
Interesting that you should bring up the railroads. They have quite the history, one that illustrates the problems of government control very well.
Did you know that in the 1890s there were already more than 1,000 different railroads in the country? There were more miles of track in the US than the rest of the world combined. Competetion was fierce, rates (passenger and freight) were low.
Now, granted, they did try to form groups to fix rates and so forth, but for some reason those groups were always falling apart.
Now, competition was greatest on the long-haul routes. Prices for those were very low, and in many cases the price for the long-haul shipping was actually less than the short distance shipping that covered the last bit of the journey (sometimes because only one railroad served a particular town). This is where people started complaining about monopolistic railroads.
As the complaints mounted, the railroad owners realized something. This could help them. So they started joining in the people calling for reform (including, I should mention, the Populist party, which called for government ownership of the railroads). This lead to the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887.
A decade later the commission was in full swing. It managed to solve the long-haul/short-haul problem. By raising long-haul rates, which made the railroads quite happy.
As time passed, the commission's power increased. Then, in the 1920s, something appeared that finally threatened the railroads power. Trucks. The artificially high long-haul rates allowed the trucking industry to grow quickly.
The railroads, of course, didn't take this lying down, and lobbied to have trucks placed under similar constraints as they operated under (despite the fact that the old monopoly arguments had no validity in this case). In 1935 the Motor Carrier Act gave the ICC jurisdiction over trucking, and it was pretty much a repeat. Rates were fixed, routes were assigned, and the industry was basically cartellized by the government.
When the ICC started its regulations, they required motor carriers to get a license from them. There were over 89,000 applicants. Only around 27,000 were approved. After that, the number of carriers dropped steadily (less than 15,000 in 1974, not sure about now). At the same time the amount of shipping increased greatly.
Then aircraft came along. The railroads, burdened by ICC rules, were already having trouble adjusting to passenger service in a world of busses and cars. The story repeated itself yet again, with the government setting minimum rates the airlines could charge (although in this case it was a reversal of the original long-haul/short-haul situation).
So, oddly enough, it was government that caused the railroad cartels, and it was government that eventually destroyed the rail industry.
--"BOB HERBERT"
Is a liberal, isn't he?
BTW, you might want to examine the government definition of poverty some time. Interesting stuff in there. Even before Bill Clinton tried to get designer sneakers included.
Wraith
"Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give."
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
You don't quite have it right, Wraith.
By the late 1800's, (LONG BEFORE TRUCKS EVEN EXISTED) railroads were abusing their power, and charging farmers absurd amounts to use rail service, forcing many farmers into bankruptsy.
The farmers formed an organization called the Grange to plead their case to the government. Public pressure was already on the government to do something anyway.
Munn v. Illinois (1877)
Midwestern farmers felt that they were being victimized by the exorbitant freight rates they were forced to pay to the powerful railroad companies. As a result, the state of Illinois passed a law that allowed the state to fix maximum rates that railroads and grain elevator companies could charge.
The Supreme Court of the United States later upheld this law because it was in the public's best interest.
The railroads countered with their own suit, saying states could not regulate interstate commerce. The Grangers had their legislation repealed, HOWEVER, the government stepped in and put an end to the laisse faire economics the railways had taken advantage of, by creating the Interstate Commerce Commission, to regulate railroads.
Basically the Supreme Court ruled that the right to regulate the railroads is a Federal power. Because mainly the railroads were abusing their power in rural areas where there was often one carrier.
Maybe you should also mention Rockefeller's Standard Oil trust? You can look on paper and see a few companies, but essentially Rockefeller merged with all of his rivals in order to fix prices.
Public sentiment was so strong against trusts that BOTH PARTIES had anti-trust legislation on their platforms. Really, the most rich and powerful companies in the nation are lobbying against the trust, yet public sentiment is strong enough to get them to put the legistlation on their platforms? Did the people of this country know something back then that you guys didn't?
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed by a 51 - 1 vote in the Senate and by a unanimous vote by the House.
"Is a liberal, isn't he? "
I don't know, and I don't care. The problem with you guys is that you buy into these pre-boxed ideaologies from groups that label themselves. "Oh, I'm a rightist, I must stand for this, oh, I'm a leftist, I must stand for this." It's all BS. Why don't you think for yourselves and can the self-righteous "theories."
In the article, you will notice he goes after both republicans and Clinton, and also cheers the spirit of bipartisanship.
Last edited by Ted Striker on 18-01-2002 at 04:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
"The 1920s were a great time for the middle class. Just too much debt. Just like today. "
Wrong. The middle class did well and yes most of it was on credit, but most of the power was overwhelmingly in the power of the rich. However today the middle class is proportionatly much stronger in numbers and actually has a stronger and more stable foundation than back then. Home ownership, as one example, isn't even close back then as it is today. A super stable banking system is also intact that didn't exist back then. (Thanks once again to smart government regulation).
"The US will look like Japan until around 2005..."
Speculation.
"Diversified ?"
Uhh, hello, there are entire industries that didn't exist back then. Not only that, most of the biggest American companies are intertwined with the rest of the world, and so when one particular international market goes south, there are other markets left to buffer the loss. In the Depression it was basically America and Europe in a destructive cycle of this symbiotic economy.
"Reckless reliquification at any cost by the Fed, rather than regulation. Also easier with pure fiat money than a semi-gold standard. The regulatory side has pretty much collapsed. And the worst excesses are outside the banking system this time. "
Where is the run on banks? The continual slide of the stock market? It has stabalized. And you will also notice credit was tightened in the investment section. The agricultural market failure?
Come on, during the Depression, the Eurocom economies were completely obliterated, there isn't a factor like that that exists in the world today, only Japan even comes close.
"Reckless reliquification at any cost by the Fed"
I already said I agreed with you there. Yet the process itself has worked more than it has not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
|
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Did you know that we've progressed, not regressed, into a civilized society since then |
Civilization is highly over-rated.
quote:
and that you still haven't disproved the assertions made in my previous post? |
Your assertion is a non-sequitor and a bare assertion. Just because you claim something is true doesn't mean it is true.
Regardless, you claimed that the rule of elites, a state/ruling class of somesort, is inevitable. If it's inevitable then any society which has been around a signifigant amount of time should have developed these ruling elites. If any society has existed for a long period of time without developing these elites then we can conclude that such development is not inevitable. The !kung are a society who have not developed a ruling elite and have been around for thousands of years. Therefore, the development of ruling elites is not inevitable.
quote:
But if you really want facts to back up my assertion wrt the inevitability of elites, I could 7 sources off the top of my head if you wish. |
And a hundred years ago you could have cited many sources to "prove" that white people are inherently superior to everyone else. That many scholars defend the status quo is nothing new.
quote:
Further point of discussion, how is elitism the result of any special problem in society?  |
I'm not sure what your'e asking in this question. If you mean why did some societies develop elites and others not, I'm not 100% sure why. I believe it happened in different ways for different reasons in different reasons. A full elaboration on all the various historical reasons for this would take a large book. The reason why hierarchical societies dominate the world today is because hierarchical nations from Europe conquered the world and imposed similar social systems on them. A few centuries ago there were many anarchist societies around the world. An anarchist revolution could reverse the current domination of statist societies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
Civilization is highly over-rated. |
Indeed it is. It has developed into a society not-critical enough which allows for people with idiotic self-destructive ideas such as yours to spring free and criticizing you would be considered "not correct".
quote:
Your assertion is a non-sequitor and a bare assertion. Just because you claim something is true doesn't mean it is true. |
Yet your claims are great since they support themselves so nicely in a circle
quote:
Regardless, you claimed that the rule of elites, a state/ruling class of somesort, is inevitable. If it's inevitable then any society which has been around a signifigant amount of time should have developed these ruling elites. If any society has existed for a long period of time without developing these elites then we can conclude that such development is not inevitable. |
We can't conclude that since to conclude that we need to show that those societies that haven't developed elites have evolved. If a society isn't evolving it's very reasonable it won't develop anything new, including elites.
quote:
The !kung are a society who have not developed a ruling elite and have been around for thousands of years. Therefore, the development of ruling elites is not inevitable. |
Developement goes hand in hand with evolevement.
Show me in which ways have the !kung evolved in any aspect. Have they raised standards of living? Have they ended many plagues? Have they contributed to creating easier longer and healthier life?
Since I never heard of the !kung contributing to it, I'll assume that they haven't, unless you can prove otherwise.
Therefore they haven't evolved and therefore they can't be counterproof to the natural evolvement of elites.
quote:
And a hundred years ago you could have cited many sources to "prove" that white people are inherently superior to everyone else. That many scholars defend the status quo is nothing new. |
And now we can quote many idiots publishing books to prove living in the stone age is so much more advanced, since today it's not politically correct to criticize idiotism.
quote:
I'm not sure what your'e asking in this question. If you mean why did some societies develop elites and others not, I'm not 100% sure why. I believe it happened in different ways for different reasons in different reasons. A full elaboration on all the various historical reasons for this would take a large book. The reason why hierarchical societies dominate the world today is because hierarchical nations from Europe conquered the world and imposed similar social systems on them. |
Therefore proving hierarchical societies are better equipped to expand and flourish, while non-hierarchical societies can't evolve meaningfully and can't defend themselves, making them objectively worse.
quote:
A few centuries ago there were many anarchist societies around the world. An anarchist revolution could reverse the current domination of statist societies. |
I'm willing to bet that most anarchist societies haven't developed these ideas but rather lived that way for lack of knowing any other way to live by.
Last edited by Sirotnikov on 18-01-2002 at 07:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
It's also a bit pretentious to critize preserving a status-quo on the one hand, and then preaching against developement of different forms of societies on the other.
Last edited by Sirotnikov on 18-01-2002 at 07:47
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-01-2002 13:30
|
