Skip Navigation

Interesting Economic Analysis

Started by LICComment
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007
Discussion about
The same forgetfulness holds for recessions, says Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago. . . . The nature of recessions is important because of what may be the free-market economists’ most surprising contention: that the recession triggered the financial crisis, not the other way around. Fama argues that the recession started as early as 2007, with consumers starting to spend less, borrowers... [more]
Response by alanhart
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007

The wikipedia says:

"By 1936, the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high at 11%, although this was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In the spring of 1937, American industrial production exceeded that of 1929 and remained level until June 1937. In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending ... in an attempt to balance the federal budget.[77] The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[78] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[79] Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production. By May 1938 retail sales began to increase, employment improved, and industrial production turned up after June 1938."

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by LICComment
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007

Roosevelt also raised taxes and the Fed tightened.

Who did you want to pay for all that government spending alan???

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by alanhart
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007

Increased prosperity, of course. Rising sea-levels lift all boats.

Or did you want me to say "you"?

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by LICComment
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007

Governments cannot increase prosperity through tax and spend. People who love taking handouts like to believe governments can, but history shows the truth.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by alanhart
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007

Especially the history of the low-tax low-spend third-world.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by The_President
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009

"Governments cannot increase prosperity through tax and spend."

Then how do you explain Reagan and Clinton?

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009

I'll respond, President raises an interesting question.
Lowering capital gains can at least initially increase gov't tax revenue as capital is destroyed , sold off, etc. This is one of the criticisms of the approach although one might argue that longer term(not the short or intermediate term) new projects are approached with lower NOI requirements and the effect becomes positive once more. Not sure we ever saw that.

Ignored comment. Unhide

Add Your Comment