Originally posted by Eminence
YouTube video
Holy shit that is hilarious.
Originally posted by psmith81992
LOL@fdr. His retarded New Deal brought massive expansion in government and prolonged the Great Depression
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Sherman and Grant are the only badass people from then. Lincoln saying, "Get this done," doesn't make him badass. And since the Great Depression was a global event, and the US doesn't exist in a vacuum, yeah, not really. What the New Deal was created to do was give money back to the working class. It did that.
Also, We literally tried ignoring the depression and hoping that it would go away. Hoover is often listed among the worst presidents because he was so ineffective.
Plus, all of mainstream economic theory says you're wrong about the new deal. so yeah
Plus, all of mainstream economic theory says you're wrong about the new deal. so yeah
I'll start with four
http://mises.org/blog/mythical-banking-crisis-and-failure-new-deal
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/what-ended-the-great-depression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression (most comprehensive).
And since the Great Depression was a global event, and the US doesn't exist in a vacuum, yeah, not really.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't understand the relevance of this post. Was that supposed to be an excuse or rationalization? Because it did not answer any questions. The US was responsible for the Great Depression. The end.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
For some reason I assumed you had a basic grasp of economics, being as intelligent as you claim. If you did, you'd know that a productive workforce and money in the pockets of the consumer strengthen the economy. I.e, if you have a country sitting on their ass and twiddling their thumbs, being unproductive and inefficient, the economy will not grow. If the people have no money to spend, the economy will not grow. This is why education and things like minimum wage are important, in theory. Contrary to whatever conservative belief you're spatting, government expansion does not halt economic growth, as government is a primary component of the GDP of any nation. GDP = C + I + G + (X − M), that is how much the country consumes, investments(business), government spending, and the net of imports of exports. If the country does not buy anything, and a large part of it wasn't, the economy tanks. If no one is investing in business, which they weren't, the economy tanks. If the government is not large enough to make up for that difference, which it wasn't, the economy tanks. So, after all that, hopefully you understand the relevance of needing an actual economy, to have an economy.
Wow.. After reading that post, not only did you prove that your grasp of economic is rudimentary at best, but that you've also chosen to regurgitate what you just now learned from what I assume is high school or college intro to Macroeconomics class, because that's the only place that basic understanding of economics could come from. But alright, I'll entertain this nonsense.
If you did, you'd know that a productive workforce and money in the pockets of the consumer strengthen the economy. I.e, if you have a country sitting on their ass and twiddling their thumbs, being unproductive and inefficient, the economy will not grow
If the people have no money to spend, the economy will not grow.
This is why education and things like minimum wage are important, in theory
Contrary to whatever conservative belief you're spatting, government expansion does not halt economic growth, as government is a primary component of the GDP of any nation.
GDP = C + I + G + (X − M), that is how much the country consumes, investments(business), government spending, and the net of imports of exports.
If the country does not buy anything, and a large part of it wasn't, the economy tanks. If no one is investing in business, which they weren't, the economy tanks. If the government is not large enough to make up for that difference, which it wasn't, the economy tanks. So, after all that, hopefully you understand the relevance of needing an actual economy, to have an economy.
Your point about the government making up the difference is irrelevant. They only masked the issue and then prolonged it. Thank god WWII production ended the Great Depression and at that point, we were on an economical level that hasn't been seen since. I hope this was a good lesson for you. I may troll 99% of the time, but when someone attempts to lecture me in economics, I get somewhat serious. I advise you to look at the links I posted, and here's some good reading material for you (I read all 3).
Two-piece for Zamp (style in 1 reminded me of you) and other interested parties:
1. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
2. http://www.vox.com/2014/12/1/7311417/race-law-controls
Reads fast, don't be put off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6iQ62v9k
Really great video. Not sure why everyone hates Obama.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6iQ62v9k
Really great video. Not sure why everyone hates Obama.
People "hate" Obama about as much as they "hated" Bush.
Originally posted by Eminence
Two-piece for Zamp (style in 1 reminded me of you) and other interested parties:
1. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
2. http://www.vox.com/2014/12/1/7311417/race-law-controlsReads fast, don't be put off.
Wow this is great. I feel like the second article is a lot closer to my understanding of how systematic racism intersects with geography and identity; when Scott Alexander mentions that the studies control for neighborhood, it's really kind of missing the point. I'd be interested to see if there's a post somewhere deeper in the archives where he defines specifically what he means to classify as "racism."
If we find that math skills are equal across ages when controlling for grade level then it doesn't mean that we should say that a first grader is as good at math as a tenth grader. For example.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I said better. Obama's domestic policies weren't good either, just better than what Bush did. Most of the stuff overseas has been a colossal disaster during the Obama presidency, and Bush had goddamn WMDs.