Re: U.S. Stock Market (not a pretty sight)
Arizona Coin Collector
On your posting below.
If you want to know the real reasons for the Financial Market
Meltdown, check out the two links shown below. Keep in
mine that this happen in 1999 and 2000. Both bills introduce
by Senator Phil Gramm.
Phil Gramm is currently John McCains economic advisor
during his presidential campaign.
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 is also cited
for the rapid increase of Crude Oil Prices over the last eight years as
well.
1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"A" <aa...@att.net> wrote in message
news:zrGdnValN91b9nPV...@earthlink.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> 2008
> Jan. 1 Oct. 7 Oct. 8 Oct. 9
> (% YTD) (% YTD) (% YTD)
>
> Dow Jones 13,264.82 9,447.11 9,258.10 8,579.19
> 30 Industrials (-28.8%) (-30.2%) (-35.3%)
> [DJIA]
> peak: 14,000.41
> (Jul. 19, 2007)
>
>
> S&P 500 [SPX] 1,468.36 996.23 984.94 909.86
> peak: 1,527.46 (-32.2%) (-32.9%) (-38.0%)
> (Mar. 24, 2000)
>
>
> NASDAQ 2,652.28 1,754.88 1,740.33 1,645.12
> peak: 5,048.62 (-33.8%) (-34.4%) (-38.0%)
> (Mar. 10, 2000)
>
>
> Dow Jones
> Transportation 4,570.55 3,898.35 3,902.32 3,669.48
> [DJTA] (-14.7%) (-14.6%) (-19.7%)
> peak: 5,446.49
> (Jul. 19, 2007)
>
>
> Dow Jones 532.53 376.69 367.59 344.36
> Utility (-29.3%) (-31.0%)
> (-35.3%)
> [DJUA]
> peak: 534.95
> (Oct. 31, 2007)
>
>
> GOLD 824.60 872.70 894.20 900.30
> [GLD] (+5.8%) (+8.4%) (+9.2%)
>
> SILVER 14.76 11.38 11.51 11.93
> [SLV]
>
Chas Edwards
Hello to all
On your posting below.
If you want to know the real reasons for the Financial Market
Meltdown, check out the two links shown below. Keep in
mine that this happen in 1999 and 2000. Both bills introduce
by Senator Phil Gramm.
Phil Gramm is currently John McCains economic advisor
during his presidential campaign.
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 is also cited
for the rapid increase of Crude Oil Prices over the last eight years
as
well.
1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp
*******
And were signed by President Clinton. One might also claim
that the 2000 Commodity Act led to the recent decline in oil
prices.
Chas. Edw.
oly
> Arizona Coin Collector
>
> Hello to all
> On your posting below.
> If you want to know the real reasons for the Financial Market
> Meltdown, check out the two links shown below. Keep in
> mine that this happen in 1999 and 2000. Both bills introduce
> by Senator Phil Gramm.
> Phil Gramm is currently John McCains economic advisor
> during his presidential campaign.
> The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 is also cited
> for the rapid increase of Crude Oil Prices over the last eight years
> as
> well.
>
> *******
>
> And were signed by President Clinton. One might also claim
> that the 2000 Commodity Act led to the recent decline in oil
> prices.
>
> Chas. Edw.
I don't know what axe the OP has to grind (he recently reported
himself as unemployed), but all the economic froth and the present
stock market drop go back to one thing, and one thing only: too much
debt.
Liberal lending leads to booms and bubbles. Liberal lending shades
into overlending - funding projects and spending that do not generate
sufficient income to pay the interest on the loans. Add in a great
deal of outright loan and bond fraud over the last three decades, mix
with stock market speculation (funded primarily with loans), and
voila! A crash.
But the root cause (as it was in the late 1920's) is too much debt.
oly
Voltronicus
And not enough credit, a set of wars that costs billions per month and
a corrupt idiot as POTUS.
Leo Marx
Did you mean the recent run up in oil prices? The 2000 Commodity Act is
what set up the wild speculation in oil futures.
Yes, nothing like republican deregulation to damage our economy and
bankrupt our future.
Can anyone think of a case where deregulation has been a good thing?
JAM
P T
>Can anyone think of a case where
>deregulation has been a good thing?
Good for whom?
;-)
Leo Marx
John Q. Public
Ya know, the little guy.
JAM
Peter
Repeal of Smoot Hawley? Repeal of prohibition?
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
The trouble with the regulation of industries (besides the almost
always inept government interference in legal forms of private
commerce) is that under regulation, private parties MOL have to be
guaranteed a certain level of return on their investment (which galls
commie liberals to no end) and that typically only a certain number of
licenses or authorities can exist, in order to assure that return (and
the prohibition to entering a business with certain profits galls
conservatives to no end).
Having spent my adult life in government, let me assure you that very
very few bureaucrats have any business ability or the ability to
analyze the pluses and minuses of a business. Then, the few that do
often lack the tact and diplomacy to convince other people that they
ARE correct - usually the expect to mandate their policy by fiat
(which pxxxes everybody off).
Regulation is always doomed to fail - most of the New Deal regulators
spent their first 10 years as strong dictators of policy, and then the
rest of their existences as pitiful patsies for the industry that they
were supposed to regulate.
oly
Leo Marx
Yes, that's true.
I guess I should have been more specific. Any examples in the last
quarter century?
JAM
Leo Marx
>
>
> Regulation is always doomed to fail - most of the New Deal regulators
> spent their first 10 years as strong dictators of policy, and then the
> rest of their existences as pitiful patsies for the industry that they
> were supposed to regulate.
>
> oly
How can you make a statement like that in the face of recent events.
It is because of deregulation, lead by the republican party, that is
responsible for the mess we are in now.
JAM
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
oly
I can make that statement about the New Deal regulators because it is
true. By 1950 or so, they were all patsies for the industry the were
supposed to regulate.
And, the eventual financial "recovery" only came about because of the
World War, not one iota because of the stupid government agencies.
I base my own comments about the incredible lack of competence of
bureaucrats based upon a nearly 30 year career in government.
oly
note.boy
societies and building societies becoming banks.
They should have stuck to what they were good at and the whole sorry mess
could have been avoided. Billy
"P T" <Petep...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5622-48E...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
oly
> The problem in the UK was caused by banks being allowed to become building
> societies and building societies becoming banks.
>
> They should have stuck to what they were good at and the whole sorry mess
> could have been avoided. Billy
>
>
> news:5622-48E...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
> Leo M asked
>
> >Can anyone think of a case where
> >deregulation has been a good thing?
>
> Good for whom?
> ;-)
After the old U.S. Savings and Loan Association industry collapsed
about 1986-1993, America's commercial banks jumped into the gaping
breach in the mortgage field. Big time.
However, the American commercial bankers were generally aware that
they could not make 15 year and 30 year fixed-rate loans (which is one
difference with Britain - I don't think that you have been able to get
a fixed rate loan in the U.K. for many years past), which were very
popular with American borrowers.
Reason? The banks didn't have any fifteen year or thirty year fixed
rate deposits. Most (85%+ of) American depositors refuse to commit
their money at a fixed rate for more than one year. And the bankers
didn't want to get into the position where they were paying ten
percent on short-term deposits while only earning 6 percent on their
long-term mortgages (that predicament is 75% of what killed-off all
those savings & loans - the other 25% was old-fashioned fraud by
owners and officers).
So, the American bankers sold the long term loans in the "secondary
market" whose primary players were Fannie Mae (Federal National
Mortgage Corporation) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation).
Freddie and Fannie sold "pools" of whole home loans to investors at
first. These things acted just like the underlying home loan
collateral. The owners of these bonds got their interest, plus a
little bit of principal, every month.
But, more insiduously, Freddie and Fannie and other private
corporations started to make "collateralized mortgage obligations
(CMOs)", which divided those monthly mortgage payment cash flows of
interest and principal into different time periods, called
"tranches". Some tranches paid out in full within one to five years.
Some tranches didn't pay anything to investors until many years in the
future. Some of the early year tranches were benign and could act
like the "pools" (or were even safer). Some of the later tranches
were "radioactive", at best wild-assed speculations - from the
beginning.
What was insidious is that Freddie and Fannie and the private
corporations hired mathematicians to structure the "collateralized
mortgage obligations" in ways to ensure that Freddie and Fannie made
obscene, sure profits, and to ensure that the people and institutions
who bought the CMOs always lost, or at best got a return at about the
rate of inflation and no better.
These CMOs are the stuff that European insurance companies and Asian
investors were sold by the bushel baskets. Many of these
"investments" are almost impossible to value today; but everybody
knows their values are very very low.
This has been too long a post, but let me assure you of one thing -
this is ONLY ONE OF THE MANY SWINDLES OUT THERE - there are MANY
OTHERS, SOME BIGGER THAN THE MORTGAGE/CMO CRAP SHOOT.
oly
oly
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0a966fde-d978-4f9c...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 8:23 am, Leo Marx <LeoM...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > oly wrote:
>
> > > Regulation is always doomed to fail - most of the New Deal regulators
> > > spent their first 10 years as strong dictators of policy, and then the
> > > rest of their existences as pitiful patsies for the industry that they
> > > were supposed to regulate.
>
> > > oly
>
> > How can you make a statement like that in the face of recent events.
>
> > It is because of deregulation, lead by the republican party, that is
> > responsible for the mess we are in now.
>
> > JAM
>
> > Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
>
> > Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
> >I can make that statement about the New Deal regulators because it is
>
> true. By 1950 or so, they were all patsies for the industry the were
>
> >supposed to regulate.
>
> about that tendency of Government regulations and regulators in 1963, with
> his groundbreaking book on the failure of the Progressive Era to do what the
> Big Government historians said it did in: "Triumph of Conservatism: A
> Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916."
> http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/002916650...
>
> That is why you can NOT trust "regulation" as some sort of
> magical government cure-all for an economy mired in slow or no economic
> growth.
> Liberty works; Government doesn't.
>
> >And, the eventual financial "recovery" only came about because of the
> >World War,
>
> assimilated by the masses in the Government-run schools!
> As seen in the Iraq War, wars don't create prosperity; either
> there or in the U.S.
> The economic recovery only took place *after* WW2, in 1946, when
> the Congress finally deregulated the wartime, centrally-planned industries
> from 1942-1945.
>
> >not one iota because of the stupid government agencies.
>
> "WW2 financial recovery"--but you have to agree with me on the 1946
> deregulation activity by Congress that was the start of the post-war
> economic explosion in the U.S. and *not* the destructive War itself.
>
> >I base my own comments about the incredible lack of competence of
> >bureaucrats based upon a nearly 30 year career in government.
>
> economy???
> Sure, take 16 million men (and some women) out of the civilian
> work force to work for the Defense industry (wartime, 1942-1946), and voila!
> Unemployment "drops" to less than 2%, but there are numerous shortages of
> most consumer goods we take for granted in a normal peacetime economy, so
> the 2% empty unemployment wartime rate meant nothing to add to the general
> level of goods and services for a population to enjoy.
> War shortages and bureaucratic rationing of: gasoline in an
> inflated-and price-controlled economy in: gasoline, sugar, rubber, steel,
> etc., etc., etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The "Wilsonian" or Progressive-era regulation did exist, of course,
but it was nothing compared to what Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust"
came up with in the New Deal. Remember that the federal government
ran great surpluses while Andrew Mellon was Secreaty of the Treasury
(from 1921 until 1930 or later).
I will stick with my statement about the World War's impact on the
economy. If you didn't get killed, it was beneficial - and not just
economically - Hitler and Tojo HAD to be defeated. Had to be. True,
there was rationing during the war, but people like my railraod worker
grandpa simply put their noses to the grindstone and saved their
greenies and later he bought a new house in 1947 (paid cash-in-full
for it). The people's savings from the war work jump-started the
later post-war economy.
I suspect that you spend a lot of time over at Lew Rockwell's website,
eh Mr. A???
I don't disagree with you in many respects...
oly
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
I meant to state that the U.S. Treasury ran great surpluses from the
early 20s until somewhat after the stock market crash of late 1929...
of course, Andrew Mellon was Secretary of the Treasury from 1921 to
1932... the only Tereasury Secreatry to serve under three Presidents.
oly
mazorj
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:0a966fde-d978-4f9c...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
...
>>I can make that statement about the New Deal regulators because it
>>is
> true. By 1950 or so, they were all patsies for the industry the
> were
>>supposed to regulate.
>
> True, but it started decades before 1950. Gabriel Kolko
> wrote about that tendency of Government regulations and regulators
> in 1963, with his groundbreaking book on the failure of the
> Progressive Era to do what the Big Government historians said it did
> in: "Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American
> History, 1900-1916."
>
>
> That is why you can NOT trust "regulation" as some sort of
> magical government cure-all for an economy mired in slow or no
> economic growth.
True.
> Liberty works; Government doesn't.
Not quite. Liberty works best except when we use it irresponsibly, in
which case government, however imperfect it may be, is the only thing
that works.
>>And, the eventual financial "recovery" only came about because of
>>the World War,
>
> Another crock of s*it, posited by court historians and
> assimilated by the masses in the Government-run schools!
> As seen in the Iraq War, wars don't create prosperity;
> either there or in the U.S.
> The economic recovery only took place *after* WW2, in
> 1946, when the Congress finally deregulated the wartime,
> centrally-planned industries from 1942-1945.
A "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Just because a change followed
an event doesn't necessarily mean that the event caused the change.
>>not one iota because of the stupid government agencies.
>
> Now, you contradicted yourself from what you mentioned
> above on "WW2 financial recovery"--but you have to agree with me on
> the 1946 deregulation activity by Congress that was the start of the
> post-war economic explosion in the U.S. and *not* the destructive
> War itself.
Wrong, there was deregulation because of recovery, not the other way
around. We dropped some price and rationing controls even before the
war ended because industry could meet domestic as well as the
war-related demand for those items, while some controls persisted
after the war until industry could ramp up to meet the demand for
those items. Deregulation helped by eliminating the economic drag of
controls that were no longer necessary, but it was hardly the driving
force or the determining factor.
It's worth noting that rationing sometimes was imposed for peculiar
reasons. We didn't ration gasoline because of any shortage. We had
plenty of gas. It was rationed to cut down on driving... which wears
out tires. We did have a critical shortage of rubber. We tightly
rationed canned goods, including canned milk... but not fresh milk or
the contents of the food cans. Why? There was a limitation on the
production of cans, which diverted steel from the war.
>>I base my own comments about the incredible lack of competence of
>>bureaucrats based upon a nearly 30 year career in government.
>
> So, how can you possibly say War is ever any good for an
> economy???
> Sure, take 16 million men (and some women) out of the
> civilian work force to work for the Defense industry (wartime,
> 1942-1946), and voila! Unemployment "drops" to less than 2%, but
> there are numerous shortages of most consumer goods we take for
> granted in a normal peacetime economy, so the 2% empty unemployment
> wartime rate meant nothing to add to the general level of goods and
> services for a population to enjoy.
> War shortages and bureaucratic rationing of: gasoline in
> an inflated-and price-controlled economy in: gasoline, sugar,
> rubber, steel, etc., etc., etc.
Okay, so what changed between 1940 and 1946 to take the economy from
limping on life support, to a budding power-house that chafed at the
restraints? There was a LOT more to it than deregulation. For the
most part, all deregulation did was to end the limits on the amounts
we could buy (and pay) for things that no longer were essential to the
war. Deregulation was necessary, but hardly sufficient.
OTOH, there was significant economic stimulus from the war, but the
stimulus in itself could not possibly have permanently gotten us out
of a Depression economy, let alone positioned us for the decades of
economic expansion that followed. Again, necessary but not
sufficient.
mazorj
...
>>The "Wilsonian" or Progressive-era regulation did exist, of course,
> but it was nothing compared to what Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust"
>>came up with in the New Deal.
>
> cooked up; except for the creation of the evil Bankers' bank: The
> Federal Reserve on the night before the night before Christmas (Dec.
> 23, 1913) that made possible the [inflation] financing of WW1 and
> then WW2.
> The people never would have approved fighting in either war if
> they knew it would have been financed 100% by direct taxation on
> their incomes,
Oh, come on. How did they think it would be paid for? Bonds and bake
sales?
Now you might argue more convincingly that they would never have
approved it if they knew that the "War to end all wars" would only set
up conditions for an even greater world war, and that the only winners
would be the bankers and armaments manufacturers.
> which is one reason why the Fed Reserve was created! A hidden tax
> on the people by the Banksters that is always blamed on outsiders
> [foreigners] or unions, or other wrong answers.
>
>> Remember that the federal government
> ran great surpluses while Andrew Mellon was Secreaty of the Treasury
>>(from 1921 until 1930 or later).
>
> Which evaporated [surpluses] permanently after the
> Warfare-Welfare System was adopted starting in 1933 by the
> power-hungry FDR
He was trying to jump-start a moribund economy. You don't do that by
amassing surpluses in goverment coffers - which BTW were collected
during the period that the Depression was brewing. And unlike our
current incumbent, his deficits came from spending with the goal of
helping the working man, not from whacking taxes as a present to the
wealthy.
> and his little-man successor, Truman who tried to seize the steel
> mills in the misguided (and expensive!) Korean War but for once the
> Supreme Court said 'NO' to a President's power-grab.
Right. They didn't blink an eye when Hoover had Army pilots take over
the air mail flying from the airlines to save money. That only ended
when too many Army pilots were crashing because unlike airline pilots,
they weren't well versed in flying by the seat of their pants at night
and in bad weather. Truman wasn't the first to go down that road.
...
>>Hitler and Tojo HAD to be defeated. Had to be.
>
> How do you feel about Stalin and our 'ally', the old Soviet
> Union?
> Think he just might have murdered more people than Hitler and
> Tojo combined?
Are you accusing oly of being an admirer of Stalin? That tells us a
lot about your thinking. "If you aren't a supporter of laissez-faire,
you must be a commie."
> How come an overwhelming 80% of the people wanted to stay *out*
> of the War until Dec. 1941?
They remembered the waste and fruitlessness of WW1.
>> True,
> there was rationing during the war, but people like my railraod
> worker
> grandpa simply put their noses to the grindstone and saved their
> greenies and later he bought a new house in 1947 (paid cash-in-full
> for it). The people's savings from the war work jump-started the
>>later post-war economy.
>
> True on your last sentence, but my point was there was *no*
> consumer good times in the war years; despite the persistent
> Government and Media political propaganda that the War "ended the
> Depression."
No one takes that to mean "ended the Depression *during* the war".
But as I've already noted, both of you are only partly right and
mostly wrong on this.
>>I suspect that you spend a lot of time over at Lew Rockwell's
>>website,
>>eh Mr. A???
>
> How did you guess?
> He has the best Free Market web site in the world giving a
> different point of view and exposing facts not shown in the MSM
> (mainstream media) on many topics of interest!
>
>>I don't disagree with you in many respects...
>
> Thanks for the confirmation and don't give up on true
> Free Markets, and not what we have now is this cronyism-type
> commonly portrayed in the media as a 'Free Market',
Cronyism is an inevitable aspect of human nature, so we can't say that
lack of regulatory oversight and limits is the direct cause of it.
But it flourishes most and at its worst when controls are lax or
non-existent. So the excessive forms of cronyism to which you refer
are indirectly the product of lax regulation. The only way to prevent
that is tighter regulation. We wouldn't need any laws or rules if
everyone always did the right thing. They don't, so we do.
Or would you also like to abolish the SEC, FDA, FAA, and all those
other agencies that encroach on our liberty? After all, it's
undeniable that they are a real drag on industries and entrepreneurs
out to make a buck. Just ask the milk producers in China.
> and too much 'deregulation' was the cause of the economic problems!
Strictly speaking, deregulation didn't "cause" these problems. It
established conditions under which they were allowed to happen.
Suppose that we hadn't deregulated large parts of the finance
industry, and instead had gone the next step to impose effective
regulation over mortgage lending and debt collateralizing practices.
Are you arguing that we'd still have all this mess? Because that is
the inevitable conclusion from your arguments.
oly
>
> news:lbhIk.424$r_3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "A" <a...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:xO-dnUEAytz6i2zV...@earthlink.com...
> >> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:0a966fde-d978-4f9c...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > ...
> >>>I can make that statement about the New Deal regulators because it is
> >> true. By 1950 or so, they were all patsies for the industry the were
> >>>supposed to regulate.
>
> >> True, but it started decades before 1950. Gabriel Kolko wrote
> >> about that tendency of Government regulations and regulators in 1963,
> >> with his groundbreaking book on the failure of the Progressive Era to do
> >> what the Big Government historians said it did in: "Triumph of
> >> Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916."
>
>
> >> That is why you can NOT trust "regulation" as some sort of
> >> magical government cure-all for an economy mired in slow or no economic
> >> growth.
>
> > True.
>
> >> Liberty works; Government doesn't.
>
> > Not quite. Liberty works best except when we use it irresponsibly, in
> > which case government, however imperfect it may be, is the only thing that
> > works.
>
> jujitsu!
> How do you use Liberty irresponsibly?
> You fail to satisfy the consumer, you go out of business!
> Under this Fascist-Socialist (Government-Big Business
> merger), you fail to satisfy consumers, you get a Government bailout!
> You dare call that 'Liberty'?
> Anybody can see through that line.
> Bwahahahahahahahaha!
>
> P.S.: Government doesn't work! Just ask the old (read: defunct) U.S.S.R.
> [Union of Soviet Socialists] and contrast to present-day free-market
> Vietnam.
>
> >>>And, the eventual financial "recovery" only came about because of the
> >>>World War,
>
> >> Another crock of s*it, posited by court historians and
> >> assimilated by the masses in the Government-run schools!
> >> As seen in the Iraq War, wars don't create prosperity; either
> >> there or in the U.S.
> >> The economic recovery only took place *after* WW2, in 1946,
> >> when the Congress finally deregulated the wartime, centrally-planned
> >> industries from 1942-1945.
>
> > A "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Just because a change followed an
> > event doesn't necessarily mean that the event caused the change.
>
> facts to back it up.
> But, the post-war Congress *did* decontrol the previous wartime
> industries that then started to make consumer goods instead of tanks,
> warplanes, and battleships; Just because you want to pretend the event
> either didn't happen or had no effect on the economy doesn't change the
> facts that it did happen and it *did* have that precise effect.
> So, what *did* start the post-war recovery if it wasn't the
> actions of the Government in decontrolling the wartime-controlled economy?
> Just happened out of the clear-blue-sky, you think?
> BTW, did the 1982 tax rate cuts help the economy get out of the
> Recessionary low-economic-growth times caused by the previous president's
> [Carter] high-tax policies?
> Maybe it was just a coincidence?
>
> >>>not one iota because of the stupid government agencies.
>
> >> Now, you contradicted yourself from what you mentioned above
> >> on "WW2 financial recovery"--but you have to agree with me on the 1946
> >> deregulation activity by Congress that was the start of the post-war
> >> economic explosion in the U.S. and *not* the destructive War itself.
>
> > Wrong, there was deregulation because of recovery, not the other way
> > around.
>
>
> > We dropped some price and rationing controls even before the war ended
> > because industry could meet domestic as well as the war-related demand for
> > those items, while some controls persisted after the war until industry
> > could ramp up to meet the demand for those items. Deregulation helped by
> > eliminating the economic drag of controls that were no longer necessary,
> > but it was hardly the driving force or the determining factor.
>
> the question:
>
> What was the 'driving force', in your words?
> Just happened out of the clear, blue sky (again), right?
>
> > It's worth noting that rationing sometimes was imposed for peculiar
> > reasons. We didn't ration gasoline because of any shortage.
>
> who witnessed the shortages?
> There wouldn't be a *need* to ration items if there weren't
> shortages in the first place!
>
> > We had plenty of gas. It was rationed to cut down on driving... which
> > wears out tires.
>
> CONTROLS, just as you (?) witnessed in the 1970s with the PRICE CONTROLS
> during the Nixon-Ford-Carter years.
>
> > We did have a critical shortage of rubber.
>
> of the strict PRICE CONTROLS stopping producers by price (non)incentives to
> look for more gasoline.
>
> > We tightly rationed canned goods, including canned milk... but not fresh
> > milk or the contents of the food cans. Why? There was a limitation on
> > the production of cans, which diverted steel from the war.
>
> consumer goods.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>I base my own comments about the incredible lack of competence of
> >>>bureaucrats based upon a nearly 30 year career in government.
>
> >> So, how can you possibly say War is ever any good for an
> >> economy???
> >> Sure, take 16 million men (and some women) out of the
> >> civilian work force to work for the Defense industry (wartime,
> >> 1942-1946), and voila! Unemployment "drops" to less than 2%, but there
> >> are numerous shortages of most consumer goods we take for granted in a
> >> normal peacetime economy, so the 2% empty unemployment wartime rate meant
> >> nothing to add to the general level of goods and services for a
> >> population to enjoy.
> >> War shortages and bureaucratic rationing of: gasoline in an
> >> inflated-and price-controlled economy in: gasoline, sugar, rubber, steel,
> >> etc., etc., etc.
>
> > Okay, so what changed between 1940 and 1946 to take the economy from
> > limping on life support, to a budding power-house that chafed at the
> > restraints? There was a LOT more to it than deregulation.
>
> 1982 Tax CUTS. Remember?
> MORE economic liberty.
> Remember that basic desire by entrepreneurs and individuals
> to be FREE of the heavy hand of Government?
>
> > For the most part, all deregulation did was to end the limits on the
> > amounts we could buy (and pay) for things that no longer were essential to
> > the war.
>
> heavy regulation does and what true deregulation also does in the opposite.
> Deregulation allows economic freedom to begin to undo the
> damage the previous regulations did in: limiting supplies, artificially
> inflate prices (as also do *higher taxes*), and decrease the wealth and
> employment opportunities for the masses.
>
> > Deregulation was necessary, but hardly sufficient.
>
> give the post-war economy the boost it needed to not fall into another long,
> drawn-out recession/depression as in the 1930s which did precisely the
> opposite of the 1946 Government actions.
>
> Question: "What should the Government have done in the 1930s to speed
> recovery?"
>
> Answer: "Do nothing (instead of what it did do to hurt the marketplace
> to naturally recover from the damage done by previous Government actions),
> sooner."
>
> > OTOH, there was significant economic stimulus from the war,
>
> help the ordinary consumer in trying to improve his standard of living!
> You think any consumer wanted to buy one of those war items
> for personal use?
>
> >but the stimulus in itself could not possibly have permanently gotten us
> >out of a Depression economy, let alone positioned us for the decades of
> >economic expansion that followed. Again, necessary but not sufficient.
>
> high taxation (incl. the hidden inflationary-tax) on consumers.
> It diverted and wasted $ BILLIONS in precious resources
> from consumer use to military use, limiting the amount of wealth available
> to the citizens.
> But the Socialists love repeating their tired-old mantra,
> "unemployment fell to less than 2%", ad infinitum!
> Therefore, the War ended the Depression!
> In their misguided (or used purposely to justify the
> centrally-planned [war] economy they love) idea of what consumers wanted to
> buy and consume during those war years!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your long long long diatribe overlooks the fact that Hitler and Tojo
had to be defeated. And yes, they were considerably more evil than
the American government which you decry.
oly
Leo Marx
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Leo Marx" <Leo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:48F0A7AA...@nospam.net...
> contrary to your brazen assertion that there has been.
> Carter and his Congress did one thing good: deregulate the
> Airline and Trucking Industry, making airline travel more affordable for the
> ordinary citizens, and shipping costs were lowered with the increased
> competition.
> BTW, how is your great-grandfather, Karl, doing?
As to the last question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico_Marx
And concerning the subject of my post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml
JAM
mazorj
Hey, oly, be careful with your text trimming. You made it look like I
was the source of the offending inanities on the Hitler/Tojo/Stalin
thing when in fact I defended you against our troll's silly
shark-jumping.
mazorj
...
>> He was trying to jump-start a moribund economy.
>
> Governments can't do that by increasing taxes, increasing
> bureaucrats and bureaucracies and passing new laws against
> businesses, and by re-inflation of the money suppy, all which the
> Government did in the 1930s and early 1940s.
Increased government spending doesn't just evaporate into thin air. A
government dollar when spent gets passed along in a chain of spending
by each recipient just as well as a dollar earned and spent by a
factory worker. The only difference that the government dollar has to
originate from a tax taken from a worker or corporation instead of
from a worker's labor or from a business' profit. Either way, the
economy is stimulated to the extent of the multiplied effect of one
marginal dollar of spending.
In exchage for the one dollar taken from taxes, the taxpayer gets one
dollar's worth of some service. Whether a given service is helpful or
efficient or even necessary is a political question, but not everyone
would agree with you that the CCC, SEC and other agencies were a
waste.
> Are you surprised his 'jump-start' (read: Government power
> increased radically) to get the economy going failed miserably with
> unemployment still over 14% in 1940?
>
> Unemployment Rate
>
> 1920 1.3%
> 1921 11.2%
> 1922 6.8%
> 1923 1.7%
> 1924 4.6%
> 1925 1.8%
> 1926 1.0%
> 1927 3.5%
> 1928 3.9%
> 1929 0.9%
> 1930 7.8%
> 1931 16.3%
> 1932 24.9%
> 1933 25.1%
> 1934 20.2%
> 1935 18.4%
> 1936 14.5%
> 1937 12.0%
> 1938 18.8%
> 1939 16.7%
So... in the first five years of the New Deal, unemployment fell by
52% - that's an astonishing feat given magnitude and the conditions of
the time. It's clear proof of the success of FDR's policies, which
were aimed at providing relief for families. The stimulus ran out of
steam in 1938 but in 1939 it still was only two-thirds of the high
point in 1933. (In 1940 it was even lower but we were gearing up for
war then so it's hard to separate the causes.) At any rate, so much
for the "abysmal failure" of the New Deal.
We'll never know what would have happened if the war hadn't come along
after that, but your two choices are
A. Say that the recovery would have continued, in which case you
further concede the effectiveness of FDR's policies, or
B. Say that FDR had run out his string and couldn't make a recovery
stick - in which case you cannot deny the role of the war in
recovering from the Depression. That's because without the stimulus
effects of the war there would be no ongoing economic dynamo for the
elimination of war controls to unleash. (And before you repeat your
silly mantra that post-war deregulation was the driving force behind
the recovery, read further down here for my answer to what were the
real driving factors in the post-war boom.)
...
> "2008 World Almanac & Book of Facts" p. 95
>
> 1940 14.6% [Employed: 47,520,000 Unemployed: 8,120,000]
> 1945 1.9% [Drafting 12+ millions for World War 2]
>
>
>>You don't do that by amassing surpluses in goverment coffers
>
> It happened in the earlier 1921-1922 deep recession
> when the Government *cut* tax rates, *cut* spending MORE, reduced
> the Debt, and ran a surplus!
> Sorry, you are historically inaccurate in your
> un-knowing claim.
Sorry, but you weren't clear here. If you're saying that the 1921-22
recession occurred even as the government was cutting taxes, cutting
spending, reducing the debt and running a surplus - that's precisely
*my* point. To help counter a recession, government should *increase*
spending. (Unfortunately, that can add to debt, but everything comes
at a price.) That's what FDR did and he had more than a modicum of
success, as outlined above using the data you provided.
>> which BTW were collected during the period that the Depression was
>> brewing.
>
> We're talking *during* the Depression years, not
> previously when the 'boom' set-up was occuring.
My point - a minor one at best - was that the conservative fiscal
policies that brought the surpluses may have sowed some of the seeds
of the Depression.
>> And unlike our current incumbent, his deficits came from spending
>> with the goal of helping the working man
>
> So, how come you don't blame him for his misguided
> policies that caused the Depression to tragically linger on for many
> years when all previous recessions in U.S. history were over in 1 to
> 2 years when the Government did nothing to interfere with the
> workings of the marketplace?
So you think that Hoover's policies would have worked? Yah, sure...
look how well they've worked over 8 years for the current
administration. By the 1932 election, your 1-2 year "normal"
recession span already was long gone and we were well in the grips of
a depression. So either Hoover's policies exacerbated a simple 1-2
ear recession into an ongoing Great Depression, or the Depression
inherently was a Level 5 economic Katrina and not your garden variety
Level 1 or 2 tropical storm.
...
>> Are you accusing oly of being an admirer of Stalin? That tells us
>> a lot about your thinking. "If you aren't a supporter of
>> laissez-faire, you must be a commie."
Based on your failure to respond and your other comments, it looks
like that was an accurate observation.
...
>>> True on your last sentence, but my point was there was
>>> *no* consumer good times in the war years; despite the persistent
>>> Government and Media political propaganda that the War "ended the
>>> Depression."
>>
>> No one takes that to mean "ended the Depression *during* the war".
>
> EVERYBODY takes that to mean 'ended the Depression'
> precisely because of the War
I was responding to your statement that was framed during the war, not
before or after it. So
"ended the Depression *during* the war" is not the same as "ended the
Depression as a result of the war." However, as I keep saying, that's
not accurate either.
> since civilian unemployment was instantly decreased to less than 2%
> because the Government forced (by the draft) 12+ million workers out
> of the civilian work force.
> You don't recognize that after that hoary myth has been
> told thousands of times by the mass media and Government officials
> themselves since 1945?
>
>> But as I've already noted, both of you are only partly right and
>> mostly wrong on this.
>
> Where was I wrong?
I thought you'd never ask.
Okay, so what did happen between 1940 and 1946 to take the economy
from
limping on life support, to a power-house that chafed at the
restraints?
Neither of the two theories about WW2 and the end of the Depression
is complete. WW2 did stimulate the economy, but it was artificial and
temporary. It did need "deregulation" of price controls, rationing,
etc.
These rules were an unnecessry drag after the war but their revocation
doesn't come close to explaining the 20+ years of sustained average
growth.
There were a *lot* of other factors at work to kick-start and sustain
a
long-term post-WW2 rise.
First among these other factors was America's emergence as the leading
world economic power as a result of it becoming the dominant military
power. Regardless of the state of our production capabilities in
1945,
both the domestic and the international markets were our oyster
because
no one else could come close to competing on a comparible level.
Partly because of all that, the dollar became the "gold standard"
of money even though it was no longer backed by gold. (We still had
the New Deal agencies keeping Wall Street and banks and other
financial institutions from running amok as they have today. We knew
the value of a sound dollar then.) And until other countries began
producing exports in volume and we got addicted to cheap imports, we
bought almost everything from American companies, so we didn't run
massive trade deficits, the dollar stayed sound, and so did our
industries.
There also was Cold War spending to keep a stream of government money
going to private industry after they turned off the WW2 taps.
Meanwhile,
the other producers turned to the rebounding market for consumer goods
as a way of staying solvent. (Madison Avenue came into its own then
because in a few years we were producing more goods in more variety
than we needed, hence, we had to be "sold" on the need for skin creams
and deodorants and New! Improved! detergents and status symbols like
cars with fins and chrome port holes. And we had all those New Deal
agencies still working to keep our food and drugs pure - no melamine
contaminants to scare off domestic or world market consumers for our
goods, or screw up our financial industries.) Then there was the G.I.
Bill
(socialized higher education, in case it escaped your notice) opening
doors to advancement for millions of wage earners, and the revival of
unions to ensure that the middle class got it's share of the newfound
wealth. The return of the G.I. also meant that we had abundant labor
to
work in the factories that were trying to rev up production.
Take away any one or two of those and the post-war post-war recovery
bounce likely would not have continued beyond a year or two.
You can deregulate all you want but if the economy doesn't
have solid underpinnings, it won't do much good. And it certainly
wouldn't turn a limp pre-war economy into a powerhouse. It took all
the factors I've outlined, plus some that I've undoubtedly overlooked,
to do that.
(Contrast all that with post-war Europe, where shortages and
destruction knocked them out as serious economic competition.
America's determination not to let European powers resume the
colonial exploitation that had propped up their economies was
genuinely
based on democratic principles, but it also played right into our own
economic agenda by ensuring that Europe and the rest of the world
would defer our superior economic, political, military, and diplomatic
power. When you're the 800-pound gorilla, life is good regardless of
whether or not you've deregulated butter and sugar and rubber.)
So war does temporarily stimulate an economy. The lost lives and
materiel are wasted elsewhere but we do get the short-term bump in
output, and unemployment is artificially held down. The problem is
that once the fighting stops, there's hell to pay on the home front in
terms of debt and the human costs, and the economy gets a post-binge
hangover like a junkie missing his fix. There are better ways to grow
an economy. Deregulation is not the cure-all, either. Neither are
massive tax cuts that produce whopping budget deficits. It takes a
lot more sophisticated approach (i.e., harder and taking longer) than
you will find on bumper stickers or in campaign slogans.
>> Cronyism is an inevitable aspect of human nature, so we can't say
>> that lack of regulatory oversight and limits is the direct cause of
>> it. But it flourishes most and at its worst when controls are lax
>> or non-existent.
>
>> So the excessive forms of cronyism to which you refer are
>> indirectly the product of lax regulation.
>
> You have it exactly bass-ackwards!
> Cronyism can only come from *using Government* to help
> special interests, usually the Big Businesses that can afford to
> incessently lobby, pay favors to Congressmen (campaign finances),
> and almost write the laws themselves, while small businesses can't
> afford to do any of those things.
Oh, GMAFB. You're blaming the victims for the crimes. Cronyism can -
and does - occur as easily in the back room of the local coin shop as
it can in the board room of a megacorporation. The only difference is
that the economies of scale allow the big companies to inflict
proportionately more damage on their victims.
But it must have slipped your notice that you just made the argument
for more good regulatory oversight. We apparently do not have enough
oversight and rules if the "big boys" can violate the spirit and even
the letter of the law. QED. (Note that calls for more regulation
presume that it must also be good, i.e., effective, not overkill, and
not unfairly hamper competition.)
> That is why true Free Markets are hated by Big
> Businesses, because they know a Free Market is something they can't
> afford if other start-up and mid-sized competitors can grab a huge
> percentage of their established business if they offer a better deal
> to consumers, and Free Markets have put previous Big Businesses
> out-of-business completely.
As I just said, any rule or law that precludes fair, open competition
is not "good".
>> The only way to prevent that is tighter regulation. We wouldn't
>> need any laws or rules if everyone always did the right thing.
>> They don't, so we do.
>
>> Or would you also like to abolish the SEC, FDA, FAA, and all those
>> other agencies that encroach on our liberty? After all, it's
>> undeniable that they are a real drag on industries and
>> entrepreneurs out to make a buck.
>
> Yes of course, *all of them* only help established BIG
> BUSINESSES at the expense of competition from SMALLER BUSINESSES
> that can't afford the huge legal costs of fighting some far-away
> bureaucrats in DC.
The answer to your complaint boils down to "If you can't afford to
play, you shouldn't be in the game." If you can't afford all those
pesky and expensive FAA rules and standards, well, you shouldn't be
operating an airline. If you can't afford to meet the reserve rules
and other requirements of the SEC, you shouldn't be trading stocks on
the floor. If you can't afford all the hygeine requirements of the
health department and FDA and Agriculture, you shouldn't be in the
food industry. All those rules - and some are indeed expensive - are
there because we, the people demanded that our government protect our
safety and security.
I know that the big boys can and do rig the rules so that they also
can have an anti-competitive effect over and above the normal
deterrents of the added costs of doing business under legitimate
rules. But you make it sound like the megacorps have locked up all
their industries as tight as a drum and that's nonsense.
Nevertheless, I'll amend my statement to read "We need to put more
good financial regulatory oversight and rules in place, and modify or
eliminate those that are ineffective or have an unfair
anti-competitive effect." Got it now?
> Gabriel Kolko, a Socialist himself, established that was the reason
> for The Progressive Era (1900-1916) in the previous incarnation of
> Socialism before FDRs additional depts-agencies imposed as disguise
> for Government regulating Big Business, in his book, "Triumph of
> Conservatism" (1963). Big Business capture the Government in those
> "Progressive" years and the same thing in the 1930s Depression to
> stop competitors.
That goes to motive. Rather than fight inevitable reform, business
co-opted it because they saw its advantages and just as importantly,
only by cooperating would they have any influence in the resulting
regulatory changes. All interest groups do that. So what? We, the
people, still demanded it for very good reasons having to do with our
own welfare. If a by-product of regulation is that it becomes
marginally more difficult for new entrants to compete against
better-financed corporations, then so be it. We can live with that,
whereas we literally were dying without a regulatory structure against
unscrupulous business practices (horrendous workplace conditions,
tainted foods, etc.) not to mention the unfettered stock market
manipulations that eventually culminated in the 1929 crash absent an
SEC.
> That's not the American way, if you still believe in open
> competition and naturally lower prices instead of pseudo-free
> markets and pretending all the ABC regulatory agencies and
> Departments somehow don't exist just because there is a nominal
> Republican Pres., in name only!
So if Bush were a "true conservative" he would have tried to dismantle
the entire regulatory agency structure?
> Bush's nick is 'Lyndon Baines Bush', because he is the
> biggest Socialist in his actions as president since LBJ left office
> in Jan. '69.
Horse manure. Well, except when it comes to corporate welfare, where
I might agree with you.
By your standards Nixon was a crypto-commie too. So what do you make
of that Flaming Librul, Bill Clinton? He managed to balance
progressive social policies against a fairly rigorous fiscal outlook
that grew the economy, incubated the 1990s boom, and produced large
surpluses.
>> Just ask the milk producers in China.
>
> What do they have to do with what is going on here in
> the U.S.?
> China had plenty of regulations on food/drink, and it
> didn't stop that disaster.
What rock have you had your head under? Every time they have another
scandal, we observe - and the Chinese admit - that their regulatory
oversight infrastructure is woefully inadequate. The rules on the
books don't matter a whit if the regulators don't have anywhere near
the resources to enforce them and there isn't enough political will to
make it happen. Except, that is, when a massive national scandal
finally breaks out from the attempts to keep it quiet and the public
outcry over tragedies like dead and maimed babies temporarily stiffens
the backbone of the leadership.
>>> and too much 'deregulation' was the cause of the economic
>>> problems!
>>
>> Strictly speaking, deregulation didn't "cause" these problems. It
>> established conditions under which they were allowed to happen.
>
> Not true. What 'deregulating' happened?
For openers, the bills that loosened the rules and restrictions on
various aspects of banking and finance and related activities.
They've already been cited here.
> Which Government Departments and/or Agencies were
> abolished?
They weren't abolished, just hamstrung.
> How many pages of the Federal Register were ripped up
> (or burned)?
You really have an uncontrollable penchant for jumping the shark,
don't you?
>> Suppose that we hadn't deregulated large parts of the finance
>> industry
>
> Nothing of the sort was done using your twisted
> language of 'deregulated'.
Horse manure. Now you're being even sillier than usual. Only someone
with your extremist view that regulatory controls in any form only
serve to protect big business could deny that large portions of
banking and finance and related activities were partially deregulated
in prior years. It's a move that even most of its supporters have
come to regret. Except Gramm, who thinks that we're just wimpy
whiners.
> , and instead had gone the next step to impose effective
>> regulation over mortgage lending and debt collateralizing
>> practices.
>
> Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were *not* Free Market
> entities.
> They were GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises).
> Therefore, nothing remotely against the 'Free Market'
> can be blamed for what happened.
Just because they were chartered by Uncle Sam means nothing. For the
past 15-20 years they've been operating almost like private
buccaneers, doing things that never were envisioned in their charter
and successfully resisting all attempts at oversight (as in "tighter
regulatory controls", the opposite of deregulation). So they
effectively acted in your "Free Markets" by creating a free market for
tradable mortgage-backed securities without stifling any competition.
Banks and other lenders still are free to compete by making loans and
holding them or selling them elsewhere. But their excesses led to
their failure, and that i turn played a pivotal role in expanding the
economic fall-out from a housing market problem to a credit and
finance problem.
>> Are you arguing that we'd still have all this mess? Because that
>> is the inevitable conclusion from your arguments.
>
> You twist the GSEs into some sort of Free Market
> function when nothing of them had any definition of a true Free
> Market in housing or financing the housing industry.
1. My criticisms go way, way beyond Fannie and Freddie - a point that
you conveniently ignore because you can't refute them.
2. As to GSEs, see previous comment.
mazorj
...
>>> Liberty works; Government doesn't.
>>
>> Not quite. Liberty works best except when we use it irresponsibly,
>> in which case government, however imperfect it may be, is the only
>> thing that works.
>
> More language gobbledegook, by Big Government language
> jujitsu!
The fact that you had to resort to such a dodge says that you don't
have a real rebuttal.
> How do you use Liberty irresponsibly?
Duh. For openers, by using it to harm or infringe on the rights of
others. That's where laws, rules, regulations, and all that stuff you
hate come into play.
At a more subtle level where responsible exercise of liberties cannot
be enforced, we have irresponsible acts like wasting our liberty, as
in failing to vote, and failing to make best use of it, as in
disregarding the rights and needs of others.
> You fail to satisfy the consumer, you go out of
> business!
A non sequitur, and who's denying that this is an eternal verity of
business? Not me.
> Under this Fascist-Socialist (Government-Big Business
> merger), you fail to satisfy consumers, you get a Government
> bailout!
Not in the case under discussion. In the current economic
developements, if you got too greedy and did things you ought to have
known not to do, you failed regardless of how satisfied your customers
may be. If the country's pain from your failure would exceed the pain
of bailing you out, you get some corporate welfare assistance.
> You dare call that 'Liberty'?
I'm smelling a troll-boy here.
> Anybody can see through that line.
> Bwahahahahahahahaha!
No matter how good they are at first, they can't help but give
themselves away.
> P.S.: Government doesn't work! Just ask the old (read: defunct)
> U.S.S.R. [Union of Soviet Socialists] and contrast to present-day
> free-market Vietnam.
"Government doesn't work"? You could have fooled me. Last I looked,
North Vietnam still had a government, and what's more, it's still
closer to socialist than free-market. Come to think of it, we got
government, too. So does China and Switzerland and anyone not a
permanent citizen of Antarctica. Except for a few dysfunctional
Third World nations, all God's chillun' got a working government,
troll boy.
>>>>And, the eventual financial "recovery" only came about because of
>>>>the World War,
>>>
>>> Another crock of s*it, posited by court historians and
>>> assimilated by the masses in the Government-run schools!
>>> As seen in the Iraq War, wars don't create prosperity;
>>> either there or in the U.S.
Really? Ask any of the big U.S. war contractors over there. Some
will always know how to prosper and profit from war. But you're right
in that the trickle-down doesn't stretch far enough to benefit most of
us.
>>> The economic recovery only took place *after* WW2, in
>>> 1946, when the Congress finally deregulated the wartime,
>>> centrally-planned industries from 1942-1945.
>>
>> A "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Just because a change
>> followed an event doesn't necessarily mean that the event caused
>> the change.
>
> True, when you are talking in general terms--and without
> any facts to back it up.
Yep, as in "You, aaaz, have no facts to back your silly claim."
> But, the post-war Congress *did* decontrol the previous
> wartime industries that then started to make consumer goods instead
> of tanks, warplanes, and battleships; Just because you want to
> pretend the event either didn't happen
I never did any such thing, troll boy. I even gave examples of how it
worked.
> or had no effect on the economy
I never did any such thing, troll boy. I even gave examples of how it
worked.
> doesn't change the facts that it did happen and it *did* have that
> precise effect.
It freed the economy to produce more consumer goods. That's all. As
I outlined in my previous post, there would have been no "economic
tiger" to unleash absent all the other factors that drove the
recovery.
> So, what *did* start the post-war recovery if it wasn't
> the actions of the Government in decontrolling the
> wartime-controlled economy?
> Just happened out of the clear-blue-sky, you think?
Read my previous post.
> BTW, did the 1982 tax rate cuts help the economy get out
> of the Recessionary low-economic-growth times caused by the previous
> president's [Carter] high-tax policies?
> Maybe it was just a coincidence?
Did the current president's massive tax cuts provide stimulatory
benefits in proportion to their cost to us and to our children and
grandchildren? Oops.
...
>>> Now, you contradicted yourself from what you mentioned
>>> above on "WW2 financial recovery"--but you have to agree with me
>>> on the 1946 deregulation activity by Congress that was the start
>>> of the post-war economic explosion in the U.S. and *not* the
>>> destructive War itself.
>>
>> Wrong, there was deregulation because of recovery, not the other
>> way around.
>
> Wrong, you got it precisely backwards.
Eliminating wartime controls allowed business to rationalize its
production. (BTW, rationalizing production was one of the cited
benefits of the early 19th Century reforms that you castigated.)
Eliminating those restraints did nothing to create conditions for new
growth. The other factors I cited did that.
>> We dropped some price and rationing controls even before the war
>> ended because industry could meet domestic as well as the
>> war-related demand for those items, while some controls persisted
>> after the war until industry could ramp up to meet the demand for
>> those items. Deregulation helped by eliminating the economic drag
>> of controls that were no longer necessary, but it was hardly the
>> driving force or the determining factor.
>
> If you want to believe that, then you still haven't
> answered the question:
>
> What was the 'driving force', in your words?
> Just happened out of the clear, blue sky (again),
> right?
Nope. You keep falling right into my troll trap. It's in my previous
posting.
>> It's worth noting that rationing sometimes was imposed for peculiar
>> reasons. We didn't ration gasoline because of any shortage.
>
> You sincerely want to explain that to the people
> alive today who witnessed the shortages?
It's a documented fact that is cited in many works on that period. If
you haven't seen it then you're not as well versed on that era as you
pretend to be.
> There wouldn't be a *need* to ration items if there
> weren't shortages in the first place!
I explained how that worked. Duh.
>> We had plenty of gas. It was rationed to cut down on driving...
>> which wears out tires.
>
> Gasoline was in short supply because of the PRICE
> CONTROLS, just as you (?) witnessed in the 1970s with the PRICE
> CONTROLS during the Nixon-Ford-Carter years.
Good lord, you're relentless in your unending stream of non sequiturs.
The 1970's? We're talking about WW2. In wartime conditions, price
controls aren't the controlling factor. Use is controlled by
rationing. Gas could have been a penny gallon or a dollar a gallon
(in wartime dollars) and the goverment couldn't have cared less. They
limited availability through rationing, to conserve something that
really was in short supply.
>> We did have a critical shortage of rubber.
>
> And many other consumer goods--including GASOLINE,
> because of the strict PRICE CONTROLS stopping producers by price
> (non)incentives to look for more gasoline.
Yet another knee-jerk non sequitur. Every industry was producing to
its utmost limits, not for profit, but because there was a war on. If
oil producers had told the government "We think we can get another 5%
out of the ground but how are we going to pay for it?" and we had
needed it, prices would have been raised or Uncle Sam would have
simply written a check to do the exploration and development. Money
was not a serious impediment when the government needed something to
prosecute the war. Witness the Manhattan Project.
>> We tightly rationed canned goods, including canned milk... but not
>> fresh milk or the contents of the food cans. Why? There was a
>> limitation on the production of cans, which diverted steel from the
>> war.
>
> True, but that doesn't say anything about gasoline or many
> other consumer goods.
Because it wasn't meant to, troll boy.
...
>> Okay, so what changed between 1940 and 1946 to take the economy
>> from limping on life support, to a budding power-house that chafed
>> at the restraints? There was a LOT more to it than deregulation.
>
> Tax CUTS. Remember?
No, I wasn't quite born then. What tax cuts were there in 1945-1947?
> 1982 Tax CUTS. Remember?
Yep, I do remember them, so I know for a fact that they weren't a
post-war measure, which is what we're talking about. We've already
noted that Bush' tax cuts didn't even pay for themselves let alone
yield any extra growth dividends, so you can't categorically say that
tax cuts by themselves do any net good.
> MORE economic liberty.
Businesses all over America had plenty of economic liberty during
1929-1939. A fat lot of good it did them without a decent economy in
which to exercise that liberty.
> Remember that basic desire by entrepreneurs and
> individuals to be FREE of the heavy hand of Government?
Oh, yeah, right. And apparently, if it was up to you, we'd have a
laissez-faire economic anarchy where "my right to screw you is sacred
so bugger off". Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed. Like it or
not, you're going to have to figure out how to stay in business while
we, the people, insist that government lay its hand on you any time
you do something that harms us or our interests.
>> For the most part, all deregulation did was to end the limits on
>> the amounts we could buy (and pay) for things that no longer were
>> essential to the war.
>
> No, you don't understand the economic consequences
> of what heavy regulation does and what true deregulation also does
> in the opposite.
No, you won't see that I do understand and have admitted that ending
wartime controls was good. But you fail to see that your fairy tale
story of how deregulation was the most important cause for post-war
recovery is just that.
> Deregulation allows economic freedom to begin to
> undo the damage the previous regulations did in: limiting supplies,
> artificially inflate prices (as also do *higher taxes*), and
> decrease the wealth and employment opportunities for the masses.
All admitted and stipulated. But that doesn't make ending wartime
controls the driving force behind post-war recovery.
>> Deregulation was necessary, but hardly sufficient.
>
> Necessary, and with lower taxes, sufficient to
> really give the post-war economy the boost it needed to not fall
> into another long, drawn-out recession/depression as in the 1930s
> which did precisely the opposite of the 1946 Government actions.
We've already disposed of that fallacy. Hoover's 3-year clock to fix
the situation ran out and it still was getting worse in 1932-33,
whereas unemployment was cut in half over the first 5 years of the New
Deal.
> Question: "What should the Government have done in the 1930s to
> speed recovery?"
>
> Answer: "Do nothing (instead of what it did do to hurt the
> marketplace to naturally recover from the damage done by previous
> Government actions), sooner."
Hoover, 3-year clock during which the essence of your strategies was
tried and failed. 'Nuff said.
>> OTOH, there was significant economic stimulus from the war,
>
> Only if you believe building warplanes, tanks, and
> battleships help the ordinary consumer in trying to improve his
> standard of living!
Well duh, it did! The millions of war workers didn't benefit from the
products they made but their jobs allowed many families to eat better,
live better, and have more stuff (even with rationing) than they had
in the depths of the Depression. Those not in war production did
almost as well because they had employment opportunities undreamed of
during the Depression. Wartime employment also opened the doors to
women in the workplace. Yes, we had to make our cars and toasters
last longer but for most Americans it was a good trade-off.
> You think any consumer wanted to buy one of those war
> items for personal use?
More irrelevant shark-jumping.
>>but the stimulus in itself could not possibly have permanently
>>gotten us out of a Depression economy, let alone positioned us for
>>the decades of economic expansion that followed. Again, necessary
>>but not sufficient.
>
> Precisely the opposite for the massive wartime
> spending and high taxation (incl. the hidden inflationary-tax) on
> consumers.
> It diverted and wasted $ BILLIONS in precious
> resources from consumer use to military use, limiting the amount of
> wealth available to the citizens.
See previous comment about what most Amerians gained from the war.
> But the Socialists love repeating their tired-old
> mantra, "unemployment fell to less than 2%", ad infinitum!
It's not just socialists, troll boy, but we already know that you
think that anyone who is not a laissez-faire economic anarchist is a
closet commie.
> Therefore, the War ended the Depression!
> In their misguided (or used purposely to justify
> the centrally-planned [war] economy they love) idea of what
> consumers wanted to buy and consume during those war years!
Most Americans ate better, lived better, and had more stuff than they
did during the Depression, troll boy.
But what can you expect from a wanker whose Google Groups rating is
one star and thinks that the x-no-archive command can hide him on the
Internet? And goes by the name of "aaaz"? (Ah, I get it now. Your
first name is Jack.)
Peter
"No, because there have been *NO* "deregulation" since 1978"
Repeal of Glass Steagall; opening of trade with Libya (to name 2).
Peter
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter <w2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote this stuff here :
>
>
>
> >"No, because there have been *NO* "deregulation" since 1978"
>
> >Repeal of Glass Steagall; opening of trade with Libya (to name 2).
>
> [and this week] when all is averaged, the total return of the entire
> stock market is just a little more than 8% over the lifetime of an
> individuals ability to invest, that being about 40+ years of one's
> working life.
>
> I'd call that a fantastic rate of return when you consider most
> savings accounts barely give you 3% and that's only if you have more
> than $25K in each account from day 1.
>
> But carry on....
I did not make any statement about the rate of return from the stock
market. I don't necessarily disagree with what you say.
Even so, I note that the average over 40+ years is not a well-defined
concept; it appears that you may mean the average of all the 40+ year
averages over a longer undefined period. I assume that the 8% you
mention is a rate per year, as 8% over 40 years isn't very much and
actually quite small when compared to a 3% per year savings account.
You also do not seem to distinguish between the rate of return in
nominal dollars, correction according to some measure of the cost of
living, comparison with other fixed rate instruments apart from
savings accounts or comparison with holding a mixture of assets (e.g.,
gold, real estate, & etc.). The expectation of anything can be
interesting, but the variance and nature of the distribution are also
interesting. One problem with such estimates of returns is survivor
bias (e.g., over the period since the late 1800s how would investment
in Russian securities have fared?).
note.boy
"Always Learning" <noPubl...@this.time> wrote in message
news:jr37f49biac8p3cf4...@zzz.com...
>>
>>Repeal of Glass Steagall; opening of trade with Libya (to name 2).
>
> [and this week] when all is averaged, the total return of the entire
> stock market is just a little more than 8% over the lifetime of an
> individuals ability to invest, that being about 40+ years of one's
> working life.
>
> I'd call that a fantastic rate of return when you consider most
> savings accounts barely give you 3% and that's only if you have more
> than $25K in each account from day 1.
>
> But carry on....
>
Providing collectables are not bought at the height of a fad, beanie babies
for example, the return can put the stock market well in the shade, 8% can
look very poor in comparison. Allowing for inflation 8% is very poor.
Scottish banknotes are a prime example, as are English ones, the values have
rocketed over the years and decades.
When a note can sometimes be bought at a bargain price, well below the
normal retail, the return can sometimes be 50% just as soon as the note can
be sold. Billy
oly
> "Always Learning" <noPublicEm...@this.time> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've heard that being a pimp can be profitable too, and involves
little effort, at least on the pimp's part.
Has anybody ever tried (and I'm sure it would be very very difficult
to get it through your thick skull, Billy) the difference between
investment and speculation???
oly
mazorj
"Always Learning" <noPubl...@this.time> wrote in message
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter <w2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote this stuff here :
>
>>
>>Repeal of Glass Steagall; opening of trade with Libya (to name 2).
>
> [and this week] when all is averaged, the total return of the entire
> stock market is just a little more than 8% over the lifetime of an
> individuals ability to invest, that being about 40+ years of one's
> working life.
>
> I'd call that a fantastic rate of return when you consider most
> savings accounts barely give you 3% and that's only if you have more
> than $25K in each account from day 1.
True for the long run, but as Keynes noted, in the long run we all are
dead. That average, like any other average, is the result of many ups
and downs on the chart. Some of them are rather large. Most workers
now approaching retirement age only got into holding stocks through
their 401k, and only have been in that for 15-20 years. Furthermore,
if you retire today and have to liquidate your 401k holdings, you're
SOL. The best retirement plan is to keep working until you're in an
up market.
PC
I've heard that being a pimp can be profitable too, and involves
little effort, at least on the pimp's part.
>>>
Pimpin' ain't easy.
mazorj
There may be a technical definition, but it boils down to whether you
expect the "normal" (historical) rate of return for such items, or you
acted with irrational exuberance and are betting that its value will
rise higher and more quickly than other items of a similar nature.
If you know that you can flip something immediately at a profit, I
wouldn't call it an investment or speculation. It falls more under
the definition of "trading". But if you hold on to it because you
think the price will rise even more, that's back into the realm of
speculating.
Leo Marx
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Oct 11, 8:23 am, Leo Marx <LeoM...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > oly wrote:
> >
> > > Regulation is always doomed to fail - most of the New Deal regulators
> > > spent their first 10 years as strong dictators of policy, and then the
> > > rest of their existences as pitiful patsies for the industry that they
> > > were supposed to regulate.
> >
> > > oly
> >
> > How can you make a statement like that in the face of recent events.
> >
> > It is because of deregulation, lead by the republican party, that is
> > responsible for the mess we are in now.
> >
> > JAM
> >
> > Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
>
> true. By 1950 or so, they were all patsies for the industry the were
> >supposed to regulate.
>
> True, but it started decades before 1950. Gabriel Kolko wrote
> about that tendency of Government regulations and regulators in 1963, with
> his groundbreaking book on the failure of the Progressive Era to do what the
> Big Government historians said it did in: "Triumph of Conservatism: A
> Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916."
>
> That is why you can NOT trust "regulation" as some sort of
> magical government cure-all for an economy mired in slow or no economic
> growth.
I never made any claim like that.
Regulation sets up an open playing field. It provides a framework that
all participants must work within. Regulation is designed to prevent
some from taking unfair advantage of others.
Liberty works; Only if every treats everyone else honestly. Government
doesn't; when the wrongdoers take control of it.
JAM
oly
> >news:0a966fde-d978-4f9c...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 11, 8:23 am, Leo Marx <LeoM...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > oly wrote:
>
> > > > Regulation is always doomed to fail - most of the New Deal regulators
> > > > spent their first 10 years as strong dictators of policy, and then the
> > > > rest of their existences as pitiful patsies for the industry that they
> > > > were supposed to regulate.
>
> > > > oly
>
> > > How can you make a statement like that in the face of recent events.
>
> > > It is because of deregulation, lead by the republican party, that is
> > > responsible for the mess we are in now.
>
> > > JAM
>
> > > Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
>
> > > Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
>
> > >I can make that statement about the New Deal regulators because it is
> > true. By 1950 or so, they were all patsies for the industry the were
> > >supposed to regulate.
>
> > True, but it started decades before 1950. Gabriel Kolko wrote
> > about that tendency of Government regulations and regulators in 1963, with
> > his groundbreaking book on the failure of the Progressive Era to do what the
> > Big Government historians said it did in: "Triumph of Conservatism: A
> > Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916."
>
> > That is why you can NOT trust "regulation" as some sort of
> > magical government cure-all for an economy mired in slow or no economic
> > growth.
>
> I never made any claim like that.
> Regulation sets up an open playing field. It provides a framework that
> all participants must work within. Regulation is designed to prevent
> some from taking unfair advantage of others.
>
> Liberty works; Only if every treats everyone else honestly. Government
> doesn't; when the wrongdoers take control of it.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Having spent nearly thirty years involved in government regulation, I
am here to tell you it doesn't work. It doesn't set up "a level
playing field". Rich people put their proxies in the regulatory
agencies, and the regulatory agencies sit on the small fry while the
rich run amok.
Look at Henry Paulson. You can argue that everything that he has done
in this filfthy filthy bailout has been done to keep Goldman Sachs
from beconing a fifteen dollar stock. So at the end of the day, he'll
still be a rich man. That's how government "works".
oly
Leo Marx
The regulations worked fine for more than fifty years, until they were
removed. The current mess is proof enough of this fact.
Henry Paulson?!?!?! Is the poster boy for deregulation AND government
intervention. And , you are correct, he will do what ever it takes to
secure his wealth and the wealth of his kind.
JAM
oly
Sorry Karl, but government regulation is just as crooked as capitalism
(the rhetoric is just different). Your socialism might work if men
were angels. They aren't. You're as wrong as your great-uncle.
Unfortunately, you're not in Highgate Cemetery.
oly
Leo Marx
You just cannot admit you are wrong.
So you resort to nonsense.
JAM