Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 17:30
VIEWED: 29022
PAGE 4 of 25

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Monday, December 30, 2013 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Conservatives have not let recessions self correct. Of the recessions you posted under conservative Presidents all had some type of stimulus brought about.

So you're saying that the article that says that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions is wrong?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

M52NICKERSON

Monday, December 30, 2013 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that the article that says that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions is wrong?

Yes that is what I'm saying. Conservatives, at least some of them, know what to do and that is not be conservative.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

SIGNYM

Monday, December 30, 2013 7:16 AM

Quote:
And this is supposed to be a victory for Liberal reaction to recession/depression? After nearly eight years, the unemployment rate was slightly lower than 25%

Yes, because following the "free market" path is what caused the crash in the first place. And, as WWII demonstrated, it's not the the answer wasn't government spending, its just that the answer was MORE government spending.

Quote:
So show me where you "proved" it.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=49834
I have referred to this post and added observations to it ever since. There is a broad trail of my comments on this topic; it's not like it's been buried. So this time, read with comprehension.

Quote:
Did you even read this cite?
Quote:
The Maastricht convergence criteria demand Euro zone members to keep government debt under 60% of GDP. By the end of 2010, PIIGS...

Thank you for proving my point. The crisis - which began in 2008- didn't START with EU government debt. But that's where is wound up... with governments hemorrhaging money to prop up private banks. Again, next time read with comprehension.

Quote:
And the 1929 to 1937 comparison that shows a still lousy economy, high unemployment, and inability to sustain stability after nearly eight years of throwing money at the problem is considered a good example of liberal ideas?

Ok, let's expand the comparison- 1920 to 1930, Yep, after a full decade of "free market" economics, the economy was in great shape. (not) Yanno, like 2000 to 2008.

Quote:
Then again, when you cite Keynesian economists, isn't that just "some say"?

What is the difference between saying "Keynesian economists say..." and "Some say..."? The difference is after "Some say" you can fill in literally anything at all. Some say the moon is made of green cheese. Well, yeah, somebody, somewhere might have said that... maybe.

Quote:
And all it did for you was give you time to think up insults.

Nope, it took me no time at all!

If you check the date and time of my post, you'll see it was pretty quickly after you posted.

But I think this says it best

Quote:
So you're saying that the article that says that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions is wrong?-Geezer

Yes that is what I'm saying. Conservatives, at least some of them, know what to do and that is not be conservative.-Nick

Indeed!

STORYMARK

Monday, December 30, 2013 10:45 AM

Did Geezer actually just ask the difference between a specific refrence to a school of thought, to a deliberately vague catch-all like "some people?"

Damn.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, December 30, 2013 3:10 PM

Conservatives have no imagination other than to follow and support the basics of trickle down and deregulation. Right now the order of the day seems to be make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

It is my contention that they wish to return to the medieval times and create a new kind of serfdom, where people are treated like indentured servants owing several hundred thousands of dollars. Economic slavery whereby the average consumer is indebted to the banks and the ultra-rich.
Watch closely as the economy continues to tank.

SGG

KPO

Monday, December 30, 2013 3:58 PM

Quote:
And it only took ten years of liberal ideas and a world war that left 50 to 80 million people dead to work. Not what I'd call a success story.

Everyone has different pictures of what caused the great depression, what prolonged it, and what improved things. 'Ten years of liberal ideas' is a lie. Many other non-liberal policies were tried in that time, which liberals point to as having exacerbated things. The bottom line is that the picture is murky, murky enough for both sides to claim that the other side's policies were primarily/entirely to blame (as you're doing). For this reason I see debates about the great depression amongst lay people as pretty pointless.

However. You admit yourself that WWII boosted the US economy out of depression. I don't think you realise the significance of this admission. WWII was like an acid test for Keynesian policies - massive government spending on mostly non economically useful things. If you concede that WWII boosted the US economy you concede that Keynesian policies work. And then perhaps you need to go back and re-evaluate your whole understanding of the great depression, and what policies made it worse, and what policies alleviated it.

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Monday, December 30, 2013 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that the article that says that Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions is wrong?

Yes that is what I'm saying. Conservatives, at least some of them, know what to do and that is not be conservative.

Depends on who you ask.

For example, this is the wiki comment on the recovery from the 1981 recession.

Quote:
According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.[63] However, conservatives insist that the significantly lower tax rates caused the recovery.

So liberals credit deficit spending, like they always do, and conservatives credit tax cuts, as they always do. Who's right?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Monday, December 30, 2013 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
And this is supposed to be a victory for Liberal reaction to recession/depression? After nearly eight years, the unemployment rate was slightly lower than 25%
Yes, because following the "free market" path is what caused the crash in the first place. And, as WWII demonstrated, it's not the the answer wasn't government spending, its just that the answer was MORE government spending.

The "Free Market"? Maybe you mean the "Stock Market"? Now they both have the word "Market", but conflating the two seems kind'a a stretch.

Quote:
Quote:
So show me where you "proved" it.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=49834
This time, read with comprehension.

So you posted a blog quote, I asked a question about whether failure to invest in some countries (which you, or the blogger you cite, posit was the cause of the Eurozone collapse)was due to their spending on social welfare instead of infrastructure, etc., and you never replied. Hardly proof.

Quote:
Quote:
Did you even read this cite?
Quote:
The Maastricht convergence criteria demand Euro zone members to keep government debt under 60% of GDP. By the end of 2010, PIIGS...
Thank you for proving my point. The crisis - which began in 2008- didn't START with EU government debt. But that's where is wound up... with governments hemorrhaging money to prop up private banks. Again, next time read with comprehension.

I've read the cite a couple of times, and don't find any reference to governments spending money to prop up private banks. You're the one who blames banks, not your cite.

Quote:
Quote:
And the 1929 to 1937 comparison that shows a still lousy economy, high unemployment, and inability to sustain stability after nearly eight years of throwing money at the problem is considered a good example of liberal ideas?
Ok, let's expand the comparison- 1920 to 1930, Yep, after a full decade of "free market" economics, the economy was in great shape. (not) Yanno, like 2000 to 2008.

You mean the "Roaring '20s"?

Quote:
The Roaring Twenties was a decade of great economic growth and widespread prosperity driven by recovery from wartime devastation and postponed spending, a boom in construction, and the rapid growth of consumer goods such as automobiles and electricity. The economy of the United States, which had successfully transitioned from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, boomed and provided loans for a European boom as well. However, there were sectors that were stagnant, especially farming and mining. The United States augmented its standing as richest country in the world, its industry aligned to mass production and its society acculturated into consumerism. European economies had a more difficult readjustment and began to flourish about 1924.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties

Quote:
Quote:
Then again, when you cite Keynesian economists, isn't that just "some say"?
What is the difference between saying "Keynesian economists say..." and "Some say..."? The difference is after "Some say" you can fill in literally anything at all. Some say the moon is made of green cheese. Well, yeah, somebody, somewhere might have said that... maybe.

Of course I actually cited people, but you ignored that.

So still waiting for examples of liberal response to recession being more successful than conservative response. So far you have the response to the Great Depression, that took ten years, a tripling of the National Debt, and a world war to end.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Monday, December 30, 2013 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Did Geezer actually just ask the difference between a specific refrence to a school of thought, to a deliberately vague catch-all like "some people?"

Damn.

Still waiting for an explanation of how the rich getting richer during the Great Recession", which you so ably pointed out above...

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-throu
gh-the-recovery/?_r=0

http://tcf.org/work/workers_economic_inequality/detail/a-tale-of-two-r
ecoveries/

https://www.stanford.edu/group/recessiontrends-dev/cgi-bin/web/resourc
es/research-project/wealth-after-great-recession-who-lost-who-recovered-and-why

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24065108/wealth-gap-widens-rich
est-1-percent-earn-biggest

And seriously - are you pretending that it didn't happen?

Are you fucking serious?

...was conservatives fault when the President and both Houses of Congress were Democratic.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Monday, December 30, 2013 9:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
And it only took ten years of liberal ideas and a world war that left 50 to 80 million people dead to work. Not what I'd call a success story.

Everyone has different pictures of what caused the great depression, what prolonged it, and what improved things. 'Ten years of liberal ideas' is a lie. Many other non-liberal policies were tried in that time, which liberals point to as having exacerbated things.

I'd appreciate a cite for the non-liberal ideas tried, and their effect.

Quote:
The bottom line is that the picture is murky, murky enough for both sides to claim that the other side's policies were primarily/entirely to blame (as you're doing). For this reason I see debates about the great depression amongst lay people as pretty pointless.

I'll drop it if SignyM does.

Quote:
However. You admit yourself that WWII boosted the US economy out of depression. I don't think you realise the significance of this admission. WWII was like an acid test for Keynesian policies - massive government spending on mostly non economically useful things. If you concede that WWII boosted the US economy you concede that Keynesian policies work. And then perhaps you need to go back and re-evaluate your whole understanding of the great depression, and what policies made it worse, and what policies alleviated it.

If you consider having a world war with tens of millions of deaths an acceptable price for ending a depression, this might be a valid point. However, the Keynesian solution did not work for the first 10 years of the Great Depression. But you don't want to debate the Great Depression, so why bring it up?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE