Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 85 of 85

Thread: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

  1. #76
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Member View Post
    someone who talks like that doesn't know much about the Depression. Read a book called Hard Times, written by people living in that time. That whole period SUCKED. Mass suicides, killings, looting, unemployment for YEARS.
    It is easy to say - we got through it and will do again, but what if for 7 years you didn't have a job, how much fun will it be getting through it?? Will you even make it before you off yourself?


    I just want to come up with a way not to repay my student loans, with this mess I don't know if there is one.
    Sorry but one set of facts for everybody. Surprisingly there were NOT mass suicides , killings or looting. There were upticks in lynchings of blacks down South. I remember reading a study that showed a direct correleation between the price of cotton and lynchings. As the price went up, lynchings went down. As it dropped, lynchings went up.

    We had unemployment that NEVER dipped below 18 % from 1932 to 1940 thanks to Hoover and FDR's tax increases and the policies of the Fed.

  2. #77
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Eagle - Would you point to a single leftist ; socialist or social democratic economy that has performed well over the past 20 years or so ? Sweden, France , Germany have all had lower economic growth and higher unemployment than we have. Japan had TEN years of deflation and stagnation. Canada has not kept pace with the U.S. Neither has Australia or the U.K.

    Mexico is certified kleptocracy and Chavez has wrecked the Venezuelan economy.

    Tax cuts worked for Coolidge, JFK ( why do the Libs. NEVER want to acknowledge the roaring success of JFK's economic policies or the success of CLINTON's tax cuts ? ) Reagan, Clinton and G.W. Bush.

    The U.K's economy took off after Thatcher's tax cuts and de-nationalization. Ireland has the lowest tax rates and the fastest growing economy in Europe. How do you explain that ?

    Btw, be careful before you put Denmark up as an example. They CUT taxes in Denmark.

  3. #78
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Eric,

    I never said anything about leftist or socialist governments. What I said was, whenever countries put into place the policies advocated by conservative ideologues, the results have always been disastrous. The policies I’m referring to are the elimination of all government assistance programs and regulations. The United States has not followed these policies, Ireland doesn’t follow these policies, Great Britain never followed these policies. Margaret Thatcher wouldn’t even discuss getting rid of Britain’s national health system.

    The military government of Chile did follow these policies during the 1970’s and 80’s and the results were a disaster. The economy completely collapsed. Chile’s poverty rate doubled from 20% to 40%. Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world.
    Last edited by eagle2; 12-16-2008 at 11:25 PM.

  4. #79
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Eric,

    I never said anything about leftist or socialist governments. What I said was, whenever countries put into place the policies advocated by conservative ideologues, the results have always been disastrous. The policies I’m referring to are the elimination of all government assistance programs and regulations. The United States has not followed these policies, Ireland doesn’t follow these policies, Great Britain never followed these policies. Margaret Thatcher wouldn’t even discuss getting rid of Britain’s national health system.

    The military government of Chile did follow these policies during the 1970’s and 80’s and the results were a disaster. The economy completely collapsed. Chile’s poverty rate doubled from 20% to 40%. Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world.
    First of all, you didn't even bother trying to answer my questions.

    Hmmm. And how do you explain Chile's recent economic success ? It wasn't all the result of the bubble in copper prices.

    As for Chile's economic "collapse" , how well do you think it was doing under Allende ? Btw, the economic hard times were the prime impetus for getting rid of Pinochet and the Junta.

    Chile's problems had numerous causes and deregulation had nothing to with it.
    The only major government program that was radically changed was making the National Pension System voluntary. On average those that stuck with the Social Security model did about as well as those who chose a more free market IRA type BECAUSE some investment programs did well and others did not. When averaged out, they were roughly equivalent to the Government controlled income transfer program.

    Ireland followed a low tax policy. It's corporate tax rates are among the lowest in the world and it's economy had record growth. Same with Portugal and some of the Eastern European economies. Denmark cut taxes and an already successful economy did even better.

    Show me an economy that performed well by raising taxes and increasing social spending ? Name one.

  5. #80
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    First of all, you didn't even bother trying to answer my questions.

    Hmmm. And how do you explain Chile's recent economic success ? It wasn't all the result of the bubble in copper prices.
    It was because after Pinochet gave up power the Chilean government stopped following his disatrous policies. Social spending was significantly increased and the poverty rate fell dramatically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    As for Chile's economic "collapse" , how well do you think it was doing under Allende ? Btw, the economic hard times were the prime impetus for getting rid of Pinochet and the Junta.
    and things were worse under Pinochet. The poverty rate doubled from 20% to 40% under Pinochet. The public sector became almost non-existant. It was a disaster for most of the Chilean people.

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html

    (snip)By 1990, when Aylwin's government went to work, the decline in social services was shocking, Ffrench said. "Public hospitals didn't have sheets and were putting two people in a bed. Public schools were a national embarrassment." (snip)

    Anyway, you're making a straw-man argument. I never argued in favor of Allende. There are other alternatives besides Allende's socialism and the extreme right-wing policies followed by the Pinochet regime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Chile's problems had numerous causes and deregulation had nothing to with it.
    Deregulation had everything to do with it. Deregulation was the reason why wages dropped so dramatically during Pinochet's regime. Deregulation was the reason why Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world. Deregulation is why Chile's banks and economy collapsed in the early 1980's.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Show me an economy that performed well by raising taxes and increasing social spending ? Name one.
    You just mentioned one above. Chile's economy performed well after raising taxes and increasing social spending. From the same link above:

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html

    (snip)
    In their first years in power after Pinochet, Chile's democratic leaders raised taxes, boosted social spending and wooed foreign investment while keeping caps on speculative inflows, and hiked the minimum wage by 40 percent.
    (snip)

    Another obvious example is the United States. The US economy performed very well during the 1990's after President Clinton raised taxes and increased social spending.

  6. #81
    God/dess hockeybobby's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,969
    Thanks
    1,811
    Thanked 597 Times in 382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Eagle - Would you point to a single leftist ; socialist or social democratic economy that has performed well over the past 20 years or so ? Canada has not kept pace with the U.S.
    Canada has been a real good place to live for the last 20 years. That's the only stat that counts. Don't knock it till you try it.

  7. #82
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    It was because after Pinochet gave up power the Chilean government stopped following his disatrous policies. Social spending was significantly increased and the poverty rate fell dramatically.



    and things were worse under Pinochet. The poverty rate doubled from 20% to 40% under Pinochet. The public sector became almost non-existant. It was a disaster for most of the Chilean people.

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html

    (snip)By 1990, when Aylwin's government went to work, the decline in social services was shocking, Ffrench said. "Public hospitals didn't have sheets and were putting two people in a bed. Public schools were a national embarrassment." (snip)

    Anyway, you're making a straw-man argument. I never argued in favor of Allende. There are other alternatives besides Allende's socialism and the extreme right-wing policies followed by the Pinochet regime.


    Deregulation had everything to do with it. Deregulation was the reason why wages dropped so dramatically during Pinochet's regime. Deregulation was the reason why Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world. Deregulation is why Chile's banks and economy collapsed in the early 1980's.




    You just mentioned one above. Chile's economy performed well after raising taxes and increasing social spending. From the same link above:

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html

    (snip)
    In their first years in power after Pinochet, Chile's democratic leaders raised taxes, boosted social spending and wooed foreign investment while keeping caps on speculative inflows, and hiked the minimum wage by 40 percent.
    (snip)

    Another obvious example is the United States. The US economy performed very well during the 1990's after President Clinton raised taxes and increased social spending.
    If the best you can do is cite right wing military dictatorships as examples of "free market failure " then it's next to impossible to discuss economics with you. Spain under Franco; Portugal under Salazar; the Phillipines under Marcos; Chile under Pinochet all lagged way behind more democratic systems.

    You're partially correct about Chile which like many Latin American dictatorships performed very poorly from an economic pov. After getting rid of Pinochet, Chile attracted foreign investment that didn't want to put money into Chile previously.
    They did NOT attract it by raising taxes on it. Quite the contrary.

    As for Clinton's policies, perhaps you might want to review the figures for unemployment and economic growth previously posted here ad nauseum by Melonie, myself and others for the Clinton years. Unemployment went down and growth really went up AFTER Clinton cut Capital Gains taxes and signed both Welfare Reform and applied Gramm-Rudman in a serious way.

  8. #83
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by hockeybobby View Post
    Canada has been a real good place to live for the last 20 years. That's the only stat that counts. Don't knock it till you try it.
    I've been to Canada many times and agree with you that it has an excellent quality of life. However it has consistently had higher unemployment, lower economic growth and a weaker currency than the U.S. over the past 30 years or so.

  9. #84
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    If the best you can do is cite right wing military dictatorships as examples of "free market failure " then it's next to impossible to discuss economics with you. Spain under Franco; Portugal under Salazar; the Phillipines under Marcos; Chile under Pinochet all lagged way behind more democratic systems.
    About the only countries that put into place the unfettered free markets advocated by conservative ideologues, are right wing dictatorships. Democratic countries don’t elect governments that advocate following these policies. People aren’t going to vote themselves into poverty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    You're partially correct about Chile which like many Latin American dictatorships performed very poorly from an economic pov. After getting rid of Pinochet, Chile attracted foreign investment that didn't want to put money into Chile previously.
    They did NOT attract it by raising taxes on it. Quite the contrary.
    The government that succeeded Pinochet in Chile did raise taxes. That is a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    As for Clinton's policies, perhaps you might want to review the figures for unemployment and economic growth previously posted here ad nauseum by Melonie, myself and others for the Clinton years. Unemployment went down and growth really went up AFTER Clinton cut Capital Gains taxes and signed both Welfare Reform and applied Gramm-Rudman in a serious way.
    No it didn’t. The economy was already growing rapidly by the time the Capital Gains tax cuts and Welfare Reform were passed. The economy grew 3.7 percent in 1996 and 4.5 percent in 1997, even thought the Capital Gains tax cut wasn’t passed until August of that year. The economy grew more in 1997 than it did in 1998, the first full year the Capital Gains tax cuts were in effect.

    http://www.euroekonom.com/graphs-dat...gdp-growth-usa

  10. #85
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs

    Obama ups jobs goal to 3 million on bad economic news

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama has decided to increase his goal for creating new jobs after receiving economic forecasts that suggest the economy is in worse shape than had been predicted, two Democratic officials told CNN.


    Officials say President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus plan will include "oversight and transparency measures."

    The officials said Obama is increasing his goal from 2.5 million to 3 million jobs over the next two years after receiving projections early this week that suggest the recession will be deeper than expected.

    The projections showed that unless significant action is taken, the nation is likely to lose up to 4 million jobs over the next year and that the unemployment rate will probably rise above 9 percent, a transition aide told CNN.

    After hearing the projections, Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden "argued that we were being too timid and that we needed to develop a plan that would save or create at least 3 million jobs," the aide said.

    One of the officials said Obama challenged his economic team to "think bolder" as some economists warn there is danger in the government doing too little to curb the recession.
    They said the stimulus plan in the works in the Obama camp would have "oversight and transparency measures" to ensure spending on the plan would be focused on stimulating the economy and not devolve into just handing out congressional pork projects.

    Don't Miss
    Dems, Obama aides continue talks on stimulus
    They said it also would include measures that will "lay a foundation for a stronger economy in the future" -- such as health care, education and energy spending. Watch what Obama has to say about the economy »

    Other measures included weatherizing 1 million homes, saving the federal government $1 billion in energy costs, modernizing schools and doubling renewable energy production, among other initiatives, the transition aide said.

    Obama also stressed to the team that it can't rely on "traditional Washington programs and politics" when drawing up the economic recovery package, the aide said. That means no earmarks, a use-it-or-lose-it policy for local funding, full transparency and "investing in what works," the aide added.

    On Friday, Obama had repeated his original goal while announcing appointments to his Cabinet and economic team.


    "Together with the appointees that I have announced, these leaders will help craft a 21st-century economic plan with the goal of creating 2.5 million jobs and strengthening our economy," he said.

    The Obama team isn't putting a price tag on its economic stimulus plan, which Democratic leaders want to have ready for the president-elect to sign either on or very soon after Inauguration Day. The transition aide told CNN that Obama aides met with Capitol Hill staff this week to discuss plans costing between $675 billion and $775 billion.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-05-2008, 12:48 PM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 03:18 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 07:53 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-11-2008, 07:18 PM
  5. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-12-2007, 10:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •