Economic Crisis and WWIII

[coberst]

Economic Crisis and WWIII

I have often read statements that indicate that the Great Depression was ended as a result of WWII. By going to war, it is said, we managed to cure the greatest economic crisis in American history.

It is said that today’s economic crisis might to be as bad as the Great Depression. If such is the case perhaps we should take a lesson from the past.

Instead of turning our factories into vast production lines building planes, ships, tanks, and guns and declaring WWIII we might declare a make-believe WWIII and instead of sending these planes, ships, tanks, and guns to far off places where we can kill people and destroy property we could achieve the same effect by building our factories on ships and sending those ships to sea.

War is only our second best consumer of goods, our very best consumer of goods would be a factory mounted on a ship with the assembly line terminating at the ramp on the stern of the ship whereby the product can be easily dumped into the sea.

Such economic prosperity can only be imagined.

[Buffy]

No, the Depression was ended by the massive Government spending projects promoted by Roosevelt in the mid-30's. WWII actually *delayed* the economic recovery and worsened the recession of 1946-48.

Is there some reason that you wish to promote death and destruction while simultaneously delaying our economic recovery?

War materiel is a *bad* investment of tax dollars because it adds nothing to the economic infrastructure: it is pure dead weight that worsens economic productivity. In economic terms it has a negative multiplier effect.

People who promote such ideas have no understanding of economics.

Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care,
Buffy

[pgrmdave]

We just committed to roughly $700 billion dollars in relief for the financial markets. Imagine what kind of economic stimulus we would get if we spent that money in other ways:

Transportation - A strong national rail system, both for freight and passengers, would benefit industry, commerce, tourism in the long run, and construction and engineering in the short term.

Education - Investments in teacher education, basic supplies, and improvements to existing buildings would boost construction and education, once again providing both short and long term relief.

Tax benefits for reduced gas consumption - provide tax incentives to drive a vehicle that gets X mpg or better, reduce current mass transportation prices massively and improve quality, provide incentives to car companies to manufacture and sell cars with better gas mileage. Not only would we help the environment, we would be reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving our trade deficit (potentially).

Technology infrastructure - The same way the US forced the phone companies to provide service to everybody, we should force them to provide broadband internet access to everybody. Perhaps also provide free wireless service in designated urban areas (though at a basic level, so as not to directly compete with the private sector too much). This would provide IT jobs and reduce the information divide, especially helping rural poor. Improved access to information would help educate our workforce.


These are just some basic ideas off the top of my head, and I suspect that most of them are better than the financial bailout, and all of them are better than starting a war, fictitious or not.

[Zythryn]

Wasn't there a report out of Britain last summer that pegged the cost of addressing global warming at 1 Trillion dollars? Hmmm, seems that amount of money isn't as insurmountable as many skeptics were saying it was

[CakeProcessingUnit]

Wait, what about this WAR in iraq? doesn't that count as a war? why aren't we prospering? lol I agree with pgrmdave.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

We just committed to roughly $700 billion dollars in relief for the financial markets. Imagine what kind of economic stimulus we would get if we spent that money in other ways:

Transportation - A strong national rail system, both for freight and passengers, would benefit industry, commerce, tourism in the long run, and construction and engineering in the short term.

Education - Investments in teacher education, basic supplies, and improvements to existing buildings would boost construction and education, once again providing both short and long term relief.

Tax benefits for reduced gas consumption - provide tax incentives to drive a vehicle that gets X mpg or better, reduce current mass transportation prices massively and improve quality, provide incentives to car companies to manufacture and sell cars with better gas mileage. Not only would we help the environment, we would be reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving our trade deficit (potentially).

Technology infrastructure - The same way the US forced the phone companies to provide service to everybody, we should force them to provide broadband internet access to everybody. Perhaps also provide free wireless service in designated urban areas (though at a basic level, so as not to directly compete with the private sector too much). This would provide IT jobs and reduce the information divide, especially helping rural poor. Improved access to information would help educate our workforce.


These are just some basic ideas off the top of my head, and I suspect that most of them are better than the financial bailout, and all of them are better than starting a war, fictitious or not.

I agree. The question then is 'why are we not only willing but eagar to spend money and lives on war and unwilling to spend money on the "good"?

Therein lay the rub. The Critical Thinker might ask Why do humans do the things they do and can we do better?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by coberst

I agree. The question then is 'why are we not only willing but eagar to spend money and lives on war and unwilling to spend money on the "good"?

Therein lay the rub. The Critical Thinker might ask Why do humans do the things they do and can we do better?

Well, it's because even critical thinkers do not bother to study history and promote outright falsehoods about our past merely to get people to pay attention to them.

So therein lay the rub: why do critical thinkers misrepresent history and prevent others from learning from the important lessons they teach us?

So we said, "Let's give him a promotion,"
Buffy

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Well, it's because even critical thinkers do not bother to study history and promote outright falsehoods about our past merely to get people to pay attention to them.

You are correct. Very few American citizens study history; nor do they study anything much beyond their TV Guide. Part of that is because our educational system has left most of us with severe learning handicaps.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Buffy

No, the Depression was ended by the massive Government spending projects promoted by Roosevelt in the mid-30's. WWII actually *delayed* the economic recovery and worsened the recession of 1946-48.

Is there some reason that you wish to promote death and destruction while simultaneously delaying our economic recovery?

War material is a *bad* investment of tax dollars because it adds nothing to the economic infrastructure: it is pure dead weight that worsens economic productivity. In economic terms it has a negative multiplier effect.

People who promote such ideas have no understanding of economics.
Buffy

Actually, FDR's worker programs and WWII had the same overall effects on the economy. Some (very minor) infrastructure was added in the 30's, but by enlarge it simply pumped money back into the buying power of a few. It did NOT create wealth which is and always has been the foundation for National Growth. The end result; Income Taxes, rose from 30% in 1929 to 70% in 1937
yet unemployment and many traditional key factors to judge the economy remained the same. GNP (todays dollars) 1929...103.8 Billion, 1933 55.8 Billion and not until June 1940 did it return to pre depression levels.

I agree War should not be a means to improve economic standards, I would disagree that the war for some reason should not have been entered. However Government spending went from Social to Industry, which did create much of the Industry that exist today, bring back some former industry and most important bring the investor back into the equation. I have argued, if the War had not occurred, the results would have only stalled the already increasing economy by ten years, but never that is was in NO way instrumental in the economy. Suppose, I know nothing about economics, but is my view..

Dave; I am one that has opposed the 'Bailout', feeling Government cannot artificially support the values of anything, especially where apparently no demand exist. The market value of homes involved are based on what people WILL pay, not what previous buyers HAD payed.

As for Government programs to supply what should be from Industry is pure socialism. If a need exist, or that the public would support, there would be some one or some current industry to provide. Rail was the major form of transportation for decades, still is in many urban areas and not all supplied by Amtrak. Nationally, industry supplies a very well maintained 'rail system'. In recent years publicly owned industry has increased movements of virtually all 'non-timed deliveries' by hauling commercial truck trailers or the use of containers. As for those vacations, people have chose to fly, drive or take the bus. If you lived out here in the mid-west, you can see daily Amtrak Passenger cars with very few on them to NOBODY.

Education; We spend on average 10k plus, per student per year and in the worst systems they spend up to 16K per (Washington DC). This is coming in large part by the people that live in the area of the school district. How much more can you bleed from those people, where more and more are retiring or just moving to avoid the taxes. You can't ever reward the many fine teachers that practice, since its all based on tenure. Private schools or anything just not based on Government/Union controls are doing quite well, with very high percentages going on to college and comparatively non existent drop out rates. Beyond K-12, there remains no reason why any person can't attend or learn from any numbers of means, IF THEY WANT TO...

Tax benefits; Social engineering is what your asking for and I would bet to save the planet from mankind's evil ways. As a smoker and a beer drinker, I have about had it with taxes, said to pay for my medical cost. While those taxes go to pay for obesity and all the problems those folks bring on themselves. Said another way, what each individual considers to be the correct lifestyle or any group of them, should not be used to punished others...

Technology is itself a product. Why not go to Cable Access, where industry finally has gone most everywhere or you can receive TV via satellites. Government still uses typewriters, hardly a source for gaining technology...

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Actually, FDR's worker programs and WWII had the same overall effects on the economy. Some (very minor) infrastructure was added in the 30's, but by enlarge it simply pumped money back into the buying power of a few.

To be charitable, this is a joke.

The TVA alone electrified the entire Mid-Atlantic Range and produced power necessary for a huge increase in production capacity that would have never happened had the Coolidge-Hoover strategy of "letting business be business" been continued, and would have severely limited our capacity to ramp up production that did indeed win WWII. This network of water and power infrastructure is mostly still there today, and to dismiss it so blithely is in direct contradiction to reality.

While this and many other infrastructure projects (go anywhere in America and check out how many roads were built in the 1930's that are only slightly modified today), were essential to winning WWII, production in WWII did indeed overheat the economy, and when the war ended the huge over capacity caused a very painful recession.

You're of course right that by 1940 the economy had recovered, and therefore it didn't need the WWII stimulus!

Originally Posted by jackson33

It did NOT create wealth which is and always has been the foundation for National Growth.

I know that it is a popular conservative truism that "government spending never creates wealth," but it's so easy to disprove, that I'm amazed that anyone can say it with a straight face. Where would we be without railroads funded by government in the 1800's? Without the Interstate Highway System? Without dams and aquaducts?

I know that Greenpeace and the Sierra Club would love it, but not anyone who wants growth!

Originally Posted by jackson33

...Income Taxes, rose from 30% in 1929 to 70% in 1937...

...at a time when only the very rich made any money at all--or paid the 70% rate--because, well, there was a Depression! Your own figures--although misinterpreted--bear this out:

Originally Posted by jackson33

yet unemployment and many traditional key factors to judge the economy remained the same. GNP (todays dollars) 1929...103.8 Billion, 1933 55.8 Billion...

GNP was nearly cut in half! As a result, unemployment hardly "remained the same," it jumped to 25% and underemployment affected 60% of the remaining workforce.

Did this take time to correct? Absolutely! Were there mistakes along the way, like over-regulation? Sure! And Roosevelt himself recognized them and changed policy rather than mindlessly running the country off a cliff by insisting on irrational "consistency to principles of free markets" that caused the depression in the first place, and has arguably caused our current mess as well.

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago,
Buffy