patrick.net

Hayek used to complain angrily about Amnesty International sending him pictures of disappeared college students.

Really, our modern world of neoliberalism is definitely descended from the Mont Pelerin ideologues: Nothing matters but economic freedom.

Drug dealing nazi escapees killing people? Bah, there's no regulation in Chile! It's full of Freedom! Whereas the most token public spending or regulation is totalitarian dictatorship.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

By what system of mathematics (praxelogy math 101?) does subtracting 3%military spending from 10 to 12% gdp growth result in a negative number?

The FDR system, IOW he simply got rid of price discovery. Remember this is the same guy who slaughtered millions of hogs in order to maintain price as this cretin felt he could enforce pricing.

"The NIRA codes established minimum wages for less-skilled and higher-skilled workers alike; employers were told that they must bargain collectively with unions, which were given myriad legislated advantages in the bargaining process, all enforced by the newly-created National Labor Relations Board. All of these policies made labor more expensive. Consequently, as the economic law of demand informs us, the inevitable result had to be less employment."

indigenous says

"Strike activity doubled from 14 million strike days in 1936 to 28 million a year later, and wages rose by about 15 percent in 1937 alone. The union/nonunion wage differential increased from 5 percent in 1933 to 23 percent by 1940. Newly-enacted Social Security payroll and unemployment insurance taxes made employment even more expensive. What all of this means is that during a period of weak or declining derived demand for labor, government policy pushed up the price of labor very significantly, causing employers to purchase less and less of it."

I knew you could master yet one more tap dance. Absolutely nothing here addresses the simple question I asked even with repeating the third paragraph. Great job. Yet another virtuoso performance from the undisputed king of shuffle and duck.

It's really cool how employers purchased less and less labour while the unemployment rate dropped. More praxeology math 101.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

So riddle me this, how did 400,000 people get killed in those 10 years?

You were talking about how unemployment went down to 4.2% under FDR. He did it by getting into a war and reducing unemployment by getting 400,000 Americans killed. Which is tantamount to reducing unemployment by executing the unemployed.

Wow, you are really on a roll today. Delusions r us. Unemployment went from 24.7% when fdr took office to 4.7% by pearl harbor without anyone getting killed in a war. Then you are saying that fdr had to kill 400,000 people in war to get down to 4.2%? That last .5% was really really tough it would appear. My god what would it have taken to get it down to 3%? I shudder t think.

Mises sure is giving his misebots some really really strong kool aid these days.

bob2356 says

It's really cool how employers purchased less and less labour while the unemployment rate dropped. More praxeology math 101.

Since the books were cooked who fucking knows what the real numbers were, but certainly not what you claim.

bob2356 says

Then you are saying that fdr had to kill 400,000 people in war to get down to 4.2%?

No dumb ass, the war machine was going by then and conscription had started in 1940.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

It's really cool how employers purchased less and less labour while the unemployment rate dropped. More praxeology math 101.

Since the books were cooked who fucking knows what the real numbers were, but certainly not what you claim.

You brought it up, now you are saying no one knows what the real numbers are. Great job. So mises.org once again says this is true because I believe it should be true and you parrot it. You just can't make this stuff up. Maybe the real numbers are even better than what is in the government records. Could be you know.

I'm not claiming anything, that's what you are here for. I'm posting official statistics. If you have some valid research (hint mises says so isn't valid research) showing the numbers are wrong feel free to post it. That of course would be an unprecedented event for you so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Then you are saying that fdr had to kill 400,000 people in war to get down to 4.2%?

No dumb ass, the war machine was going by then and conscription had started in 1940.

Wow, conscription started in 1940. How many people did conscription kill before the shooting started 2 years later? Lots of accidents in basic training? You would think FDR could have just stopped at 4.7% unemployment rate at the end of 1941 and no one would have died in war. But no, we had to have that last .5% at all costs. It's really amazing how fdr manipulated the japanese into attacking pearl harbor so he could send 400,000 people to get killed to reduce the unemployment rate that last .5% after reducing it 20% in peacetime. The man was truly a dedicated and machiavellian genius.

bob2356 says

If you have some valid research (hint mises says so isn't valid research) showing the numbers are wrong feel free to post it.

I have yet to see you do anything but carp.

bob2356 says

Wow, conscription started in 1940. How many people did conscription kill before the shooting started 2 years later? Lots of accidents in basic training? You would think FDR could have just stopped at 4.7% unemployment rate at the end of 1941 and no one would have died in war. But no, we had to have that last .5% at all costs. It's really amazing how fdr manipulated the japanese into attacking pearl harbor so he could send 400,000 people to get killed to reduce the unemployment rate that last .5% after reducing it 20% in peacetime. The man was truly a dedicated and machiavellian genius.

No dumb fuck conscription and the war machine lowered the unemployment numbers. If you would bother to watch the video it clearly illustrates how the books were cooked.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S

indigenous says

bob2356 says

If you have some valid research (hint mises says so isn't valid research) showing the numbers are wrong feel free to post it.

I have yet to see you do anything but carp.

Problems with you eyeglass prescription as well as short term memory? I take that as a no, you don't have any kind of valid research to add to the conversation. You really have trouble with the idea of saying yes and no.

indigenous says

No dumb fuck conscription and the war machine lowered the unemployment numbers.

But you said that 400,000 people died to lower the unemployment numbers. Now you say it was conscription. Which indiginous am I to believe? Do you have multiple personality problems?

Military at the end of 1939 was 322,473 with unemployment of 17%. Military at the end of 1940 was 458,365 with unemployment of 14%. The conscription really started mid 1941 with 1,801,101 in the military by the end of the year with unemployment of 10%. So drafting 130,000 people dropped the unemployment rate 3%. Drafting 1 million people dropped the unemployment rate 4%. Praxeology math 101 again. The big military build up wasn't until 1942 when it went to 3,915,407 then to 9,195,912 in 1943.

You manage to totally ignore lend lease and arms sales that skyrocketed in 1940, 1941, 1942 along with the big domestic build up 1942-1945. I will admit you are the master at ignoring any facts that you don't like, but it's pretty tough to ignore billions in lend lease sales. I'm sure you will manage. Gee, I wonder if huge increases in factory outputs, like doubling and tripling every year, those years had anything to do with falling unemployment rates. Ya think?
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Aircraft 245 630 1706 2842 2805
Munitions 140 423 2167 3803 2033
Shipbuilding 159 375 1091 1815 1710
Aluminum 126 189 318 561 474
Rubber 109 144 152 202 206
Steel 131 171 190 202 197

Let's see, the civilian work force increased by 1.5 million in 1940 vs 130,000 military, 2.5 million in 1941 vs 1.8 million military, 4.5 million vs 3 million military in 1942. Gee I wonder where a lot of the unemployed went to? Oh yea I forgot, they were all conscripted.

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.htmlhttp://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_during_World_War_II

Eagerly looking forward to the next spin session. Watching you squirm around makes me want to see singing in the rain with the second best tap dancer in history after you.

bob2356 says

But you said that 400,000 people died to lower the unemployment numbers.

You see where I said the:

bob2356 says

and the war machine

You are the one who has selective hearing malfunction.

The rest of your argument can summed up as ad hominem

You prefer to remain willfully ignorant.

As opposed to the Dangerous Blue State model where they end up like Greece??? Illinois comes to mind.

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the Dangerous Blue State model where they end up like Greece??? Illinois comes to mind.

My theory is that once a red state starts making money they turn into a blue state. Calif for example.

anonymous says

This includes the CCC and WPA ?

Yup

IOW FDR felt he could do away with price discovery and just issue welfare, IOW Keynesian economics.

zzyzzx says

As opposed to the Dangerous Blue State model where they end up like Greece??? Illinois comes to mind.

I'll remind you as well that Illinois has had Republican governors for 26 of the last 38 years. Illinois has some issues, but they're not Dem issue.

indigenous says

The point is that Keynesian economics is a complete failure.

So, on the one had you say war ended the Great Depression, but then you follow that up saying Keynesian economics is a complete failure??

War (in this case) is the definition of Keynesian economics and, by your own statement, you say it ended the Depression. Which is it?

indigenous says

IOW FDR felt he could do away with price discovery and just issue welfare, IOW Keynesian economics

You have absolutely NO clue what Keynesian economics is. None.

tatupu70 says

War is the definition of Keynesian economics

I did not say that

tatupu70 says

you say it ended the Depression

No it masked it

tatupu70 says

You have absolutely NO clue what Keynesian economics is.

It believes all can be handled by fiscal controls.

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

You have absolutely NO clue what Keynesian economics is.

It believes all can be handled by fiscal controls.

Ignorance pithily expressed. At least you're not wasting our time.

Mine too, and they worked for their money, but it was still money issued by the government.

indigenous says

It believes all can be handled by fiscal controls.

My guess is that you can't even tell me what fiscal controls are--but regardless, that's incorrect. Try doing some research that doesn't involve youtube videos or mises.org.

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

War is the definition of Keynesian economics

I did not say that

OK, do you disagree that warfare spending, in this instance, would be considered Keynesian?

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

you say it ended the Depression

No it masked it

OK--if the war only masked the Depression, and FDR's policies made it worse, what ended the Depression??

tatupu70 says

what ended the Depression??

A neutering of FDR's policies.

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

what ended the Depression??

A neutering of FDR's policies.

GDP was back to pre-1929 levels by 1937.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

But you said that 400,000 people died to lower the unemployment numbers.

You see where I said the:

bob2356 says

and the war machine

You are the one who has selective hearing malfunction.

indigenous says

He did it by getting into a war and reducing unemployment by getting 400,000 Americans killed. Which is tantamount to reducing unemployment by executing the unemployed.

So you didn't say 400,000 people died to lower the unemployment numbers, I see. Very interesting. So exactly what does this say then? I don't see the words "and the war machine" in your original quote. From the top now 5,6 7,8 dance step, step, step turn.

I only read the words you write, I just don't have the ability to know what you intended to write.

You do realize your original quote was "fdr fucked up the economy for 10 years". The US involvement in WWII didn't start in that time frame. 5,6,7,8 step, step, turn.

indigenous says

No dumb ass, the war machine was going by then and conscription had started in 1940.

Here you go dumbass

HydroCabron says

GDP was back to pre-1929 levels by 1937.

Excellent 8 yr later

Why do you suppose it took so long to recover, the longest in history?

Same as you mutts blaming Bush, not that he was a conservative.

The intial cause was monetary.

And your stating that it was world wide is not an answer, but you're too stupid to realize that.

So you are quitting, fair enough.

But you have not answered the question.

indigenous says

But you have not answered the question

Nope--he answered it. You may not agree or even understand, but he definitely answered it.

indigenous says

Is not.

Wow.

Uhh, "Is too?"

indigenous says

Excellent 8 yr later

I was thinking of pointing out the month and year of Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration, but why bother?

We're being hornswoggled. At this point, given what we know of your "intellect", discussing anything with you is like addressing a cinder block wall.

You mutts are all conjecture all the time.

You completely ignore how heinous FDR was.

IOW you mainline the Kool-aid.

indigenous says

You mutts are all conjecture all the time.

You completely ignore how heinous FDR was.

IOW you mainline the Kool-aid.

Wow, mutts and kool-aid all in one post. The sign of an intellectual giant. This comment means that indigenous has now won the debate and kept his record perfect for people who weren't aware of the overarching implications of mutts and kool-aid.

bob2356 says

Wow, mutts and kool-aid all in one post. The sign of an intellectual giant. This comment means that indigenous has now won the debate and kept his record perfect for people who weren't aware of the overarching implications of mutts and kool-aid.

IOW bob is out of arguments and is left with only ad hominem, gees I thought you were a little above Woggy, my mistake.

You mutts need to learn a modicum of real economics, not the Keynesian crap.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Wow, mutts and kool-aid all in one post. The sign of an intellectual giant. This comment means that indigenous has now won the debate and kept his record perfect for people who weren't aware of the overarching implications of mutts and kool-aid.

IOW bob is out of arguments and is left with only ad hominem, gees I thought you were a little above Woggy, my mistake.

You posted fdr was bad because I say so, mutts, and kool aid as your contribution to raising of the intellectual level of the discussion after having had every one of your assertions thoroughly debunked. I only pointed out the incongruity of it. Try again.

I have to say I'm always amazed that you come back time and time again with fdr caused the depression when the depression was 4 years old when he was elected. Are you that completely and totally indoctrinated or can you just not read a calendar?

Let's not forget about the dangerous Blue State model that's also bankrupting Puerto Rico.

anonymous says

The Chamber’s message also indicated the organization opposes the food tax cut.

Dickensian evil.

At least they didn't put emails on a private server

Splain this then: