Anyone who argues for abolishing federal deposit insurance instantly qualifies as a nut in my book.

He should go back in time to the Great Depression and see how the households who lost their savings and ended up standing in bread lines liked it before he starts sputtering such nonsense.

Peter Schiff *Failboat.com.org

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Definitely one to mark down:

Schiff says we'll have a crash of our economy driven by hyperinflation by the end of the year, or maybe in 2010.

Krugman (who unlike Schiff is a Nobel prize winning economist) also predicted the problem we're having now, and says if we don't do something even bigger than an $800bn stimulus, we're in for a deflationary problem, just like the Great Depression.

Clearly, someone will be proven right, even if disaster ensues.

Flim-flam artists like Schiff should know better, if the problem now is because Greenspan made the interest rate too low in 2002 then the real problem is that our current 0% interest rate will cause a new asset bubble that will collapse, so he should allow for a much longer period of time for it to gestate, like say Obama's second term, 2014 or so.

But that wouldn't get him on the TeeVee machine to throw bricks at Democrats as often.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect. And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

You also failed in your economic analysis. To say that the stimulus jobs created 1 job for every $200,000 is the most absurd thing I've ever read. First off, it assumes that the only jobs created are the jobs of people it directly contributed to hiring without taking into account the residual effects of said hiring, or the results of whatever goods and services produced from the work they did. How many jobs are created or preserved by building infrastructure? How many jobs were created or preserved by providing all workers hired through stimulus programs, which in turn spent that income on goods and services produced by private sector workers? What about workers producing goods and services necessary for these programs that wouldn't immediately show up?

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

The economy is cyclical in nature. Stopping the bleeding is a big deal. And most economists believe the stimulus bill wasn't as successful as it should have been is because it wasn't big enough, not because it was too big or was done at all.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_100.png

So there's completely DUH obvious undeniable, there's no other way to explain it, basic US historical fact that we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending. How can you possibly argue that "when government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn." So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?! You have no factual claims to stand on! Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression! We deficit spent quite a bit leading up to WWII, still didn't get out of the Great Depression, massive record deficit spent, THEN got out of the Depression. It is undeniable that's what did the trick.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.
The facts...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Unemployment started going up a bit in May of 2008 (5.4%). By February of 2009 (Stimulus bill passes) the rate was 8.2%. By October of 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. +2%. After. The. Stimulus. Unemployment hit 9%+ in May of 2009 and has stayed in that zone ever since.
Unemployment did spike a total of +4% between May of 2008 and May of 2009. 60% of that spike took place before the stimulus, and 40% of the spike took place AFTER the stimulus. In order for anyone to claim that the stimulus 'stopped' unemployement from rising, they would have to conclusively prove that unemployment WOULD HAVE RISEN to 13.4% by May of 2010, then to 17.4% by May of this year without the passage of the stimulus. Balderdash. Unemployment hit a natural free market peak in late 2009, and it was going to do that with our without the stimulus.
Let's assume the stimulus DID 'create jobs'. Is that backed up by facts?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-campa
ign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R20110913
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
Economic data is open to debate. On the one side here we have the CBO which gave the stimulus a very generous amount of credit (based on some very questionable interpretations of job 'creation') for 'creating or preserving' 3 million jobs. Then we have an OSU study which uses statistics to prove the stimulus 'created' 450,000 government jobs and KILLED a million private sector jobs.
I personally I think the OSU study hits the nail on the head. "ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than directly boost private sector employment." That is a statement that reflects reality. The stimulus mostly plugged up budgeting gaps that had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the CBO itself freely admitted, "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” QUOTE!
But let's be really nice and use the CBO's figures - even though they are highly questionable. 3 million jobs were 'created or preserved' by the stimulus bill. Even in this very rosy scenario, the stimulus made 1 job for every $200,000 dollars. It can be credibly argued that doing NOTHING would have generated a better result in an overall analysis compared to spending $200K for 1 job.
But for the sake of discussion let's take a good hard look at the jobs that were 'created'. After all, 200K a job might make sense if they were GOOD jobs...
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/11/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs
They weren't. Most of the jobs were government jobs. And most of them were temporary construction jobs or other seasonal gigs for make-work projects scheduled to complete in a year or less (at which point they are fired). The private sector - where jobs are needed most - got virtually NO boost from the stimulus.
I could keep on going for hours, but suffice it to say that the stimulus didn't 'stop' unemployment. There is solid, real, credible evidence that the government's interference in the free market did far more harm than good. That's what happens. When government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn.

Because the international banking system is global, so too are the protests. The magnitude of the protests will have some relation to how screwed over the average citizen feels. For example there are lots of good reasons for people in the united states to be pissed off, but in the entire country of 300+Million, less than half the protesters were reported than the Spanish city of Madrid. Just one city in a country of only 46M.

Why? I don't know. Is it the poor media coverage? Do people not realize that they have a reason to be pissed off? Or that they really can change things if they get together? I will have to let our American friends offer better insight than I can.

The last time that the income gap was this extreme was immediately followed by the Great Depression, which was immediately followed by WWII. (Presently, I see a repeat of history from about 90 years ago in charts and other data.) The recent push to refresh in military technology, be it the F-35 White Elephant or the recent $35B Canadian navy contract, are not isolated only to NorthAm militaries. And I do believe that there is potential for some kind of blowback from NATO/US involvement in Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan etc. To what extent or force the blowback will or won't be remains to be seen. I hope the my spidey-senses and my surface reading of history are both very off on this point.

My prediction is that things will get worse before they get better. The recession in the U.S. is not a double dip, because it hasn't really gotten enough better to stop being a recession. Lots of soldiers are about to come home from Iraq, many will be discharged and not be able to find other non-military work. Greece will likely default or the process of preventing default will be so complicated that it will be seen as a lesser evil as opposed to a victory for the globalized financial casino markets, and some form of protest will continue or will be revived after a brief hiatus once a leak in the patchwork repair job springs true.

The real wildcard in Occupy Wall Street could be the reaction of those thousands of hard-working soldiers home from a long war to a country in protest. There are certainly a lot of factors to be considered. All I can say for certain is that something will come of Occupy.

Banks are not forced to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends for their stockholders. They CHOOSE to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends because they CAN. They didn't used to.

You speak like banks are supposed to act like a charity, or a public work like a sidewalk. Banks didn't 'used to' try to earn profits? When was that - exactly? Profits on home loans used to be based on the interest. Why did that change? Because politicians changed the laws. Loans became cheap and the poor, middle-class, and rich all started getting bigger loans (or more loans) that they couldn't have gotten under the old system. They all did it not because banks were 'forcing' them, but because they could make out like bandits while it was all clicking.

Canada didn't have the same problems our country had, because they had BANKING REGULATIONS.

Regulations that the US also had before government interfered in the marketplace. Government removed Glass-Steagall - not the banks. Prog-libs may whine about the banks acting unscrupulously, but you don't see mass arrests and prosecutions do you? Why? Because the cold hard reality is that banks did not break any laws. They simply followed the laws that government created. Don't like what they did? Blame the government. Prog-libs say government didn't 'force banks' to lend bad money. True. But you know what? Banks didn't 'force consumers' to borrow bad money either. But both banks and consumers acted stupidly for the same reason... Because government said it was fine.

And when you say the government pushed for subprime lending so everybody could buy a house, don't you mean bank lobbyists told Bush to push the idea in the first place?

The whole push for this started under Jimmy Carter, built up in the 80s & 90s, and finally took place with Bill Clinton in 1999. Did bank lobbyists push for it? Of course - mostly the bigger financial houses who were really limited by Glass-Steagall. The GOP was all OK with it too - alas. Democrats (particularly Barney Frank) were salivating over it. The rhetoric that built up to the final passage was mostly about how banks who were redlining poor minorities, and repealing G/S wouldu help everyone get homes, increase bank profits, fix your truck, and cure cancer. Both the GOP and Dems let this happen. Nowhere near enough people tried to stop it.

But let's call a tiger a tiger here... Standing up for Glass-Stegall in 1999 was a tough position to take. The proponents of the change were blasting anyone who opposed it as a racist, or a rich fat-cat that just didn't want 'the poor' to get a break. If you were against the repeal, all you could do is point at the Great Depression, and very distant macro-economic philosophies. We now have the 20/20 hindsight to see clearly that it was really the people trying to repeal G/S who were the jerks, @$$hats, and slimeballs. But in 1999 it was very different. Bush never 'speechified' it. In fact, Bush tried to get some reforms going in 2005 long before the bubble popped. But it was slapped down for the same reasons as the before. Wasn't until September/October 2007 that reality finally hit.

The government forced them to create CDO's? to bundle up non-AAA holdings and sell them as AAA? to extend themselves beyond their ability to cover their loses?

In a word - yes - the government forced the issue. Before the government interfered, lenders had actuarial tables and KNEW with 100% certainty who could and couldn't afford a loan the second they walked in the door. Mortgage rates were in the 8% to 10% range. Banks 'made' money on loans with the interest. People who earned less than 30K a year had a tough time getting into a house because (DUH!) they didn't really earn enough money. It was common sense. People that were POOR couldn't just go out and buy houses willy-nilly.

Then the government came along. They wanted people to get loans cheaper and more often and entirely for political reasons. But banks aren't charities and if they can't make the money on the interest (which you can't with sub-prime) then how do you make money? Hmmm... Oh yeah - let's get rid of this little thing called "Glass Steagall"! Now let's use the Fed to jack around interest rates until they are below 5%. Now you banks are commanded by government to make your profits by bundling the loans as derivatives. Now it is almost impossible to survive as a lending institution without doing what we tell you. Oh yeah, you banks? When it all blows up down the road it is YOUR fault... There you go banks!

That was government meddling with the market. They changed the rules so Barney Frank could tell voters that they had "UFFODUBBLE HOW-SING!". It was true left-wing, neolib stupidity on parade and it screwed up the entire planet. They were the ones that changed the laws. The private sector had no choice but to react to the rules that government barfed up.

The system that GOVERNMENT established turned the housing market within a very short time from a staid system of "moderate loans paid off by interest" into a crazed gold-rush of "cheap loans for everyone paid off by bundling". Banks had no choice to play that game because that was playing field that GOVERNMENT created. Any bank offering a SANE loan at an 8% interest rate and making its profits over 30 years was getting clobbered by lenders handing out loans at 2.5% ARMs that were making a bundle on the back end. Banks knew it was crazy, but those were the rules that GOVERNMENT set up and they didn't have any choice but to operate within that rubric. But government said, "Hey - if the loans blow up don't worry about it! We'll cover those bad loans with Freddie/Fannie and you won't be on the hook for it..." Government.

You see, that's what that happens when government interferes with the market and picks the winners and losers by changing rules, laws, and policy. The whole thing would have been impossible without a corrupt government starting the ball rolling for political purposes.

Everybody on the planet learned after the Great Depression that having an 'environment' where bundling and other such investments could exist was not good. That's why Glass-Stegall was created. It stopped a BAD investment practice and it worked for over 50 years without government being "involved" in a single, bloody thing. That's what !good! government does. It establishes a simple, basic set of rules and then STOPS INTERFERING. The reason for the housing failure was not because government WASN'T regulating the market. It was because the government WAS regulating the market in a terrible way.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall - a common sense law - and then ban the government from EVER interfering with the housing sector again. Things work just fine when you set up a simple, transparent system and then forbid the government from coming within a million miles of it.

Helluva story. Here's the whole thing from Wiki:

The Christie Pits riot occurred on 16 August 1933 at the Christie Pits (Willowvale Park) playground in Toronto, Canada. The riot can only be understood in the context of the anti-semitism, Swastika clubs and parades and resentment of "foreigners" in Toronto, and the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany in 1933.[1]

The riot, which lasted six hours, broke out after a quarter-final baseball game at Christie Pits Park between two local clubs, Harbord Playground, predominantly Jewish, and St. Peter's, a baseball team sponsored by a church at Bathurst and Bloor.[2]

The riot occurred soon after Adolf Hitler took power in Germany and in the midst of the Great Depression. The Toronto papers, including the Telegram and the Toronto Star, as well as the Yiddish journal, Der Yiddisher Zhurnal, reported on how Jews were being dismissed as lawyers, professors, teachers, etc. in Germany, as well as incidents of violence against them. Thus to Jews the swastika represented degradation and physical violence against Jews, and was inflammatory.[3]

At that time, the Jewish community in Toronto was predominantly poor and working class. They were also the subject of discrimination and were excluded from summer resorts outside of the city. Jewish families and youths in particular would therefore cool off during the hot summer months by staying in town and going to the predominantly Anglo Beaches area in order to swim. This resulted in complaints and resentment from some local residents. Some of the locals formed "Swastika Clubs", which openly displayed the Nazi symbol to express their displeasure and make Jews feel unwanted.[4] The leaders of the Swastika Club initially insisted that the swastika had nothing to do with Hitler. They said they merely wanted to keep the Beach clean. After a meeting with Jewish leaders backed by City officials, the Swastika club agreed to drop its symbol and its name. At that point, several of the members joined the Swastika Association of Canada that was much more open about its links to Hitler.[5]

The night of the riot was the second game between Harbord and St. Peter's. Two nights earlier, at the first game of the series, a swastika had been displayed. Police were warned that there could be trouble at the second game, but those warnings were ignored. After the final out of the second game, Pit Gang members displayed a blanket with a large swastika painted on it. A number of Jewish boys and young men who had heard about the previous Swastika incident rushed the Swastika sign to destroy it, supporters of both sides (including Italians who supported the Jews) from the surrounding area joined in, and a fight started.[6]

The Toronto Daily Star described the event the next day:
“ While groups of Jewish and Gentile youths wielded fists and clubs in a series of violent scraps for possession of a white flag bearing a swastika symbol at Willowvale Park last night, a crowd of more than 10,000 citizens, excited by cries of ‘Heil Hitler’ became suddenly a disorderly mob and surged wildly about the park and surrounding streets, trying to gain a view of the actual combatants, which soon developed in violence and intensity of racial feeling into one of the worst free-for-alls ever seen in the city.

Scores were injured, many requiring medical and hospital attention... Heads were opened, eyes blackened and bodies thumped and battered as literally dozens of persons, young or old, many of them non-combatant spectators, were injured more or less seriously by a variety of ugly weapons in the hands of wild-eyed and irresponsible young hoodlums, both Jewish and Gentile".[7]
”

No one was killed in the riots. There was criticism of the police for not being ready to intervene, as they had been during previous potential problems in the Beach area.[8] After the riot, Mayor Stewart warned against displaying the swastika and there were no further riots.[9]

The riot revealed the xenophobic attitudes toward Jews and other non-Anglo immigrants among Anglo Canadians. Jews represented the largest minority in Toronto in 1933 and were thus a target of xenophobic residents.

In August 2008, a Heritage Toronto plaque was presented to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the riot.

Repealing Glass-Steagall got government out of the market, and was a huge mistake.

That's like blaming the water for a flood when the guy up the river dynamited the dam. Who repealed Glass-Steagall? AIG? The "banks"? Nope. It was government - who had a specific objective in doing so. That is government interference in the market.

The video gets that one thing right. After the Great Depression the imposition of Glass Steagall created an environment where the banking system couldn't go nuts. That is a great example of GOOD government. Government is fine when it sets up a set of basic, fair rules and then just stays out of everyone's business and lets the market run itself.

But leftists (both in the GOP and Democrat party) have been jonesing for more and more "social engineering" power for a long time. They look out on the world and see 'unfairness' (as they define it) and want to use the power of government to change the system into something they think is better. But as with all tyrants and meddlers in misery - they forget (or choose to ignore) the sad history that is the result of such thinking. Poverty, oppression, and death.

Government constantly interfering in the private sector has created an environment of uncertainty and patronage where businesses are more beholden to whoever holds political office than to their customers. If you want to stop the 'offenses' of Wall Street - then you have to slap down government first. Reduce thier size, scope, power, influence, and ability to interfere. When government loses power, it will flow back to people who have the ability to control the market with their buying dollars.

It seems to me that nearly all of the arguments that take place on this website concerning taxes are based on the percentages people pay. But there seems to be a lot of evidence from the Great Depression until the early 80s that high tax rates on the wealthy and regulation makes for a stable economy. Where the wealth gets put back into the system because otherwise they would lose it to taxation, and it would be put back into the system anyway via public projects.

It's a little insane that there are people making more in a year than 10, 25, 50 people might make in their lifetimes, have lobbying power due to this wealth, have corporate money backing their positions, and all the power that comes with that lobbying ability, and still don't feel like they've gotten enough because they might pay a higher effective tax percentage than someone who makes 1/10th or less of what they do. Same guy who probably owns a fridge, a car, a microwave, and has a bit of money in savings, but would be financially devastated in as little as 3 months if he lost his job. He probably also hasn't had a vacation in years (that's not to say he didn't use vacation days), and there's a good chance he could benefit from medical treatment but can't take enough time off in one go and still be able to pay his bills and afford to live.

I think it's pretty insane that we have a period in time in our history where we had overall economic stability for around 50 years and the guys who have the money to influence the government aren't pushing to get it stable (because it benefits them to have it the way it is now), government officials aren't pushing to get it back (because it benefits them to have it the way it is now), and the middle class and poor have almost no voice in the race (because they are too busy accusing each other of over-taxing the rich, not paying for their own healthcare, being in unions, being on government assistance, etc......because it benefits the previous two groups to have it the way it is now).

Kind of a risky situation to put yourself in, because there's the potential that it gets bad enough that the middle class and poor realize pointing fingers at each other hasn't gotten them anywhere. Of course it'll only take another 50 years or so to revert back to this, because hey...fuck history we need PROGRESS!

@kymbos @dag I've listened to 'this American life' for the past 2 years. I'm Australian and it relates to one and all. The podcast is one of those pure gems that you find...a real incite into the human condition. I do love looking forward to it every week. It is real, true Broadcast/Investigative radio. Every episode follows a theme in various acts (different stories):

Example episode 368: Who do you think you are?

...In which talks about the oral history of the great depression, parking tickets and more. 'This American Life' can be funny at times, informative and heart breaking. I recomend you all give it a try Thier podcasts are free for streaming on the site.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/

Protests are often a catalyst for democratic change. Think women's rights, civil rights, the end of the Vietnam war, the labor movement, the New Deal/end of great depression, etc...

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

I think your post and your sentiment is very shortsighted. The US government has a long history of subsidizing high tech. It's why we lead the world in this area. Countries like China are following the US example and gaining fast, since the US seems to be regressing. China's government's investment in private solar companies dwarfs America's, and is one factor in Solyndra's failure; Solyndra found it hard to compete against chinese products.

I could give numerous example of corporations that receive "Recovery Act" funds that have moved jobs to China this year. Since the Recovery Act is paying off those corporation that "Dey Took Ar Jawbs!" Is it wrong to conclude the recovery act is a product of the Corporate Dominated Politics?

What does this have to do with the video? If anything, Solyndra is a counterexample: an american company building a factory and research facilities in the states, opting to compete on innovation rather than cheap overseas labor. Despite its failure, we should invest in 10 more Solyndras. We need a high skill base in this country; not a population of burger flippers and day laborers.

The WPA (in teh great depression, part of the new deal) provided direct employment. They build the hoover dam, other stuff.

Contrast this to the recovery act, which spends about 80 billion on education, half that on infrastructure, and spreads the rest of the 600 billion all over.

This is a very bad comparison, and a flawed summary of what the recovery act does. For example, the 80 billion in education helped to keep teachers employed. Is that a waste?





From the recovery website:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:

•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans
•Requiring recipients of Recovery funds to report quarterly on how they are using the money. All the data is posted on Recovery.gov so the public can track the Recovery funds.
In addition to offering financial aid directly to local school districts, expanding the Child Tax Credit, and underwriting a process to computerize health records to reduce medical errors and save on health care costs, the Recovery Act is targeted at infrastructure development and enhancement. For instance, the Act plans investment in the domestic renewable energy industry and the weatherizing of 75 percent of federal buildings as well as more than one million private homes around the country.

Construction and repair of roads and bridges as well as scientific research and the expansion of broadband and wireless service are also included among the many projects that the Recovery Act will fund.

While many of Recovery Act projects are focused more immediately on jumpstarting the economy, others, especially those involving infrastructure improvements, are expected to contribute to economic growth for many years.

The WPA (in teh great depression, part of the new deal) provided direct employment. They build the hoover dam, other stuff.

Contrast this to the recovery act, which spends about 80 billion on education, half that on infrastructure, and spreads the rest of the 600 billion all over.

http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-perrys-top-donors-under-scrutiny-for-receiving-texas-sized-benefits-2011-9
This details how Rick Perry's political friends get rich while Rick Perry cuts state-run health care and education.

If I believed that the recovery act went to paying wages, I would support it. But I really doubt it. My own personal idea is for the government to subsidize the minimum wage. It would add $5 in salary to each employee making less than $10. Do the math. for 1 million people, it would cost 10 Billion per year.

I could give numerous example of corporations that receive "Recovery Act" funds that have moved jobs to China this year. Since the Recovery Act is paying off those corporation that "Dey Took Ar Jawbs!" Is it wrong to conclude the recovery act is a product of the Corporate Dominated Politics?

1 more thing. I agree w/ Paul Krugman (who warned on future debt payments). The debt payments will come due, and If RICK PERRY is allowed to borrow money for HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE. Who will be paying off the debt? (I don't assume booming growth in the next decade)

@dystopianfuturetoday

Yeah, about what I thought.

My prediction: we'll see this vilified on Faux News. If they tell people this is a commie plot--by pinko dupes--they will (are trying to) drive people from the left to Americans Elect.

Third party spoiler set-up.

Our system is broken, but a third party is not the solution. Instant Run-off Voting or similar system overhaul is needed. But the only way this will happen--now that the rich own everything--is if the whole system crashes (something no one should ever wish for--people will starve to death).

Great Depression 2.0