Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2667 views
Yeah...I'm not really very interested in what former slave owners thought about things. In fact, the 1920s were incredibly prosperous, and not just for the upper classes.
Until we hit the Great Depression, sure.
Yeah, largely created by the crazy tarrifs, and then New Deal kept the depression going. 
I dispute that. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html
I'm sure why you can see having hundreds of millions, or even tens of millions, of middle class people who "cannot adjust" get hurt (by losing their jobs and losing unemployment benefits and being forced to resort to any measure to stay alive) is something that should be avoided. It goes back to Keynesian economics - companies can fail, but there must be support for those who fall as a result. (Disclaimer: I am not an economist.)
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be avoided. I'm saying that it's better to have a growing, innovating economy where those people can find new things to do than to make them wards of the state. That's not to say that things like unemployment insurance are unmitigated evil. I'm just pointing out that most things meant to soften the blows end up making recovery more difficult.
I don't see the relevance of your link. I'm against the economic policy of protectionism and for free trade.
OK. You linked some stuff that was saying how it was bad that Americans were taking advantage of free trade to improve their standard of living. It's not much different than the old cliche about buggy whip makers.
Yes, the 1930s (and really, it started with Hoover...FDR just built on what he started) should have been enough to prove that when the government gets active and tries to make things better, it fails. Not unlike the other 20th century experiments in statism.
Failed enough to get him in the White House four times in a row.
Oh, yes, hugely successful politically. But a catastrophe economically.
I know that I'm repeating myself here, but I dispute that. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html [/quote]
That link does not argue that the New Deal ended the Depression. It does argue the questionable conclusion that WWII ended it. He also says that Hoover decreased spending, which is wrong, so I'm not sure this is such a good page to link.
I don't follow. Coal miners don't have jobs?
Many didn't. My point is that no collective bargaining will fix underlying problems with the economy.
I can understand how someone could see public sector unions as a problem. On the other hand, losing half the police force at once is hardly a solution. Unions didn't cause the market to crash down (which wiped out the securities that backed the pensions), nor did they force politicians into deficit spending.
Yes, the problem is that the problem with the unions aren't apparent (or dealt with) until they reach a crisis point. Furthermore, public unions are often largely responsible with funding the elections of the very people with whom they negotiate. It's true that unions didn't cause a lot of other problems, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a problem.
Matt
