will there be a QE 3 ?

Massive deficits that were paid down when the resulting growth of Keynesian polices grew revenues.

 

In the fa ce of the largest stock market drop and huge balance sheet losses ever seen in the U.S. or the world. Unregulated banksters and Wall street stuck then and again in 2007.

Context, dude. The Great Depression was huge. And the New Deal spending pales in comparison to the resulting Keynesian program that became WWII (not that WWII was a goal of any Keynesian, of courese... if the world had not been at war and that money had been shifted into rebuilding the economy, we'd have seen far larger growth than we did in the 1940s-1980s and beyond).

To the bolded: So how do you explain how sardines and oranges are so similar again? Was the recession in 1921 in any way similarly caused by a collapse in banking or wall street? Nope. so why try to compare two completely different happenings?

 

You cannot know what America would have been like without the Stimulus...not possible.

All you can do is guess.

What we do know is unemployment was 8.2 when it passed.

Was 10.1 eight months later.

And is 9.1 today and rising.

 

I merely posted facts.

I assume that means you don't dispute the stats I posted.

 

I dispute the whole premise you came out with, because it's irrelevant. A shift in the workforce and production from war materiel to marketplace economy has absolutely nothing to do with the Great Depression being caused by banking and stock market collapses.

 

But we know generally what the multipliers are of spending versus tax cuts and what the money is spent on. The projections before the programs are paid for are pretty close to what happens.

You can deny it, but that only distances yourself from reality.

 

I note your dispute.

 

I am posting facts and yet you say that I am distancing myself from reality.

Okaaay.


Have a nice day.

 

The 1921 recession was all about the shock of returning troops going back into civilian jobs, tighter Fed monetary policy and agriculture commodity shocks.

The Great Depression wasn't anything on those lines.

 

You too. and if you dispute the facts of multipliers in spenduing, taxes, etc. than you'll have to provide evidence countering 80 or 90 years of economic history.

 

Every major recession is different.

But fighting them best is always the same, imo. - balance the budget, look after the poor and get the government out of the way so the economy can fix itself.

And I believe my posts back that up.

You disagree? Okay.

But unless you can disprove my stats with unbiased facts/stats - then further discussion is pointless, imo.

I am not interested in theories - only proven facts.

 

I could care less what some theory states as what would probably happen. Matters to me not in the least.

I care only about results.

And the results of the Stimulus area as follows:

the unemployment rate continued to skyrocket after it was passed. And despite the trillions and trillions of dollars of stimuli, QE's, Mark-to-Market rule changes, toxic asset buy-ups, etc. - the rate is still above 9% and is climbing.

And there is absolutely no way to know what would have happened had the stimulus not been passed. No way.

You can guess. You can assume. You can hypothesize. You can hope. But there is ABSOLUTELY no way to know.

None.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVSoVlkTGA"]YouTube - ‪Max Keiser & Sandeep Jaitly Discuss Austrian School of Economics‬‏[/ame]

 

Actually, no they never got paid down.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...024_653&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s&show=

 

"Quantitative Easing" is such an ugly phrase. I prefer "The War in Pakistan" or "The Libyan Occupation" or "The Invasion of Yemen".

 

It never ceases to amaze me how almost every man woman and child in the USA bought this hoax hook line and sinker.

The hoax is the very rationale why it is(was) urgent to have saved the banks first even if the real economy took a flush.

And it was presented to us like a ransom note: "you have one week to sign a bill into law giving us unchecked discretion over the use of $787 billion in tax payer dollars or everybody will die".

And then years later and trillions more in additional emergency measures banks really aren't lending, housing prices still haven't stabilized, unemployment is still bobbling around 9%, but the banks are fine, making record profits and passing out near record annual bonuses.

And the public can't even recognize that they are swallowing a lie......An obvious lie. A lie the size of Georgia streaking down their driveway with it's hair on fire lie.

If we hadn't run off half mad and thrown money at the banks as fast as possible things may have turned out better, not worse.

 

No. Your posts state your opinion. Your opinion is not backed up by historical economic data. There's never been a single time balancing budgets has solved unemployment, lowered economic activity or balance sheet problems. The facts simply aren;t there for you to point at and say "See?! This is how a balancec budgets fixed a recession."

The facts aren;t there from you. And the theory of Austrian economics doesn't even have a logical means of explaining how the economy works, unless you believe in fairy tales.

 

So show us how multipliers don't work instead of ducking the issue.

Unemployment rose. It did not continue to skyrocket.

It's not trillions and trillions. And the unemployment rate would have been larger as stated by the CBO. now if you want to disagree with the projections, then shows something proving otherwise. If not, then you're basically denying it without making a counter argument.

Based on past experiences, yes you can.

Again, you haven't disproven multipliers.

 

Which specific facts/stats that I posted were wrong?

 

You stated this:

That's a theory, of a sort. It's not a complete theory, but you offered no facts to support the statement.

I'll state my agreement that looking after the poor and unemployed is smart. But that's a Keynesian approach, more or less.

Deregulation (or "getting government out of the way" as you state it) has been an abject failure, particularly when it was a major part of the housing bubble and burst that has started the current recession now. Balancing budgets do nothing to spur demand. And without demand, and people buying the stuff and services that stuff makers and service providers sell, means no profits or need to hire more people.

 

1) The un. rate was 8.2 when the Stim passed and within 8 months it was 10.1. I call that skyrocketing.

2) QE1 and QE2 were 2.3 trillion combined (minimum). The Stimulus was $787 billion. TARP, bailing out Fannie and Freddie and AIG, the Fed toxic asset buy-ups.
That's way over $4 trillion right there.

and 3)You cannot know what would have happened. Impossible. Multipliers or crystal balls doesn't matter.

 

and the CBO report I posted stated that the stimulus kept the unemployment rate from being larger.

I'd be willing to bet that the $4 trillion is less debt than we'd have if none of those were done.

Multipliers are accepted fact in economics.

 

For the last time, no one can know what would have happened without the stimulus. They can guess or estimate or believe - but they cannot know.

You want to believe otherwise - go right ahead.

 

Yup.

And all it cost was a gigantic fiscal deficit, a DOW that lost 13% between mid-'33 and mid '42 and FDR still couldn't manage (before the war economy took over) to get the unemployment rate down to even twice as bad as it was before the Crash.

And yet, under Harding's Austrian-style approach to the 1920/21 recession; despite the fact that their governments ran surpluses, the unemployment rate rebounded within three years as did the DOW to at or near pre-recession levels.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/smiley.1920s.final
(see Figure 5)


In other words, what Harding managed to do in 3 years for free; FDR did not manage to do in 9 years for a bundle of dough.

In fact, under FDR, the DOW never came close to it's pre-crash high - and actually lost 13% between mid '33 and mid '42. Plus, it never returned to it's pre-Crash high under FDR OR Truman - never even came close.
How anyone can claim the economy was improving over 9 years when the DOW actually lost ground over that time is beyond me.

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html

 

Except for the fact that Harding's policies helped to usher in the Depression which caused untolled misery to this country for decades, I guess you'd have a point.

By the way, blaming DOW performanced on FDR's deficits is borderline delusional. The DOW was afflicted with a deflationary economy that required lots of Keynesian to get back on track. It wasn't possible to do it overnight, or in 3 years or in 6, so profound was the legacy of stupidity left by conservative economic policies.