There are some rather extraordinary claims there. Can you please cite sources? As someone who was a history major in college i can tell you that the great depression went in NO WAY the way you are claiming it went.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
13 Russians, 3 businesses indicted by Mueller/Rosenstein in connection to Trump
- Thread starter Xzi
- Start date
- Views 39,592
- Replies 594
- Likes 11
It comes from the book "Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell"
Thomas Sowell is an Economist that was trained under Milton Friedman. Friedman is a well know Nobel Prize winning Economist.
The difference is a History Major and an Economist.
Last edited by SG854,
Regulation is necessary because of greed. Regulation=\=Laws. Laws stem from mankind's inherent tendency to disregard morality for gain or other reasons. The repeal of regulations enabled the credit rating agencies to slap AAA labels on junk mortgage backed CDO's and investment firms to sell them without fear of repercussion. They knew they were too big to fail. So we bailed them out. To claim government is responsible is idiotic. On top of that, there were almost no regulations or govt interventions during the depression era. It was simply the stock market crashing that caused it. Its basic economic theory. Bubbles are followed by busts. The 20's had the nations wealth double in a decade. Then the bust came. Govt had nothing to do with it. Hence the reason for what you hate, regulation on financial industries, stems from the fact that people will throw away your retirement if it makes them rich. Add to that, that there are no consequences and no one will hold you liable ... at all ... and you have the perfect recipe for theft. Basically you have some ideal that believes that all people are good and well-intentioned or something. Go into business selling cocaine against the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico and see how well your "pure capitalism" works out for you. All's fair right? The industry will work itself out right? Put your money where your mouth is. I can assure you they'll put your mouth where your money is. And your feet, and your arms, and your ...
Government is a central planning Monopoly which I thought Monopolies is what people are against.
The Roaring 20's was not the cause of he Great Depression government intervention was
Smoot Hawley Tariff Bill, which over 1,000 economist asked Hoover to Veto this tariff bill that would made the economy worse off after it was recovering on its own without Government intervention. It was predictable this would happen by economists.
Last edited by SG854,
It was passed in 1930. The depression started in 1929. Try again. Bubbles are followed by busts. And again, put your money where your mouth is. There's no better example of a purely capitalistic business environment than the drug trade. Just consider outlawing murder another regulation, since laws=/=regulations.
Last edited by brickmii82,
Dude, I stated in my previous post that unemployment went to 9% for month after the stock market crashed then declined to 6.3% in June 1930. It was recovering on its own till government policies came in the picture.
Great! And you know what came a bit after that? A whole shitload of labor disputes. Because people got payed crap for a wage, worked in unsafe environments, and were nothing more than a disposable tool to the employer.
Edit: Look, don't get me wrong. I'm a State Sovereignty kind of person. But there are some things that need to be regulated in a civilized society.
Last edited by brickmii82,
You can't expect businesses to pay higher wages when they were also affected during the Great Depression. If you have pre depression prices you won't be able to sell anything, if you have pre depression wages unemployment would be higher.
School regulation unions make it impossible to fire bad teachers and now they have The Lemon Dance. And our education system sucks.
Licensing regulations to work make union workers have monopoly on the job control, its like a tariff bill for employment.
Regulations on land and to make affordable housing makes houses more expensive.
Regulations on gas to keep prices low creates a shortage and long lines for gas are a result of that.
Price Regulations on Medicine is what causes R&D medicine makers to flee from European countries to the U.S. because they have no money to fund the hundreds of million dollars needed to create new medicine.
Regulations don't work. The government should have limited control, and this is not to say government should be completely out, we need someone to be able to hold law when we sue when a business steps out of line, but when they do they loose customers and money, they can't survive if they constantly screw over people.
Last edited by SG854,
Replace "regulations" with "taxes" and I can buy most of it. But again, Some industries need regulations. Otherwise its financial Darwinism. And again, Drug Trades are an example of unfettered business environments. The investment world is rigged for the big whale to eat well. Also, Glass Steagall proved that they do work. There was never a serious crash until it was repealed and irresponsibility and abuse came into play. Face it, lots of people suck and they'll rob your Grandma to buy a Porsche if they can get away with it.
Today we are paying agriculture subsidies to millionaire and billionaires because of programs created during the Great Depression to try to help small farmers having a hard time.
While people talk about corporate greed no one talks about greed from everyday people. When prices are set artificially low then would be in a free market it causes people to use more of that service and to buy more of that item. There will always be scarcity, we don't have unlimited of anything, prices that fluctuate based on supply and demand is a reflection of that. When you have scarcity and artificially lower prices because of government intervention, more people use and buy more of that product leaving less for everyone else. This is why lines were so long in Canada for Medical service, people get medical attention for minor problems that wouldn't have leaving less time for others that do have much more major problems. It became such a problem they were forced to add some privatization to the medical industry.
Or places with strongest rent control creates a housing shortage and higher rates of homelessness even though there is enough housing space for the population, because single living people that would've gotten a smaller house for cheaper price gets a bigger one with lower prices under rent control. Or people that would've gotten a room mate and split the bill under non rent control, end up getting there own apartment without a room mate. Same goes for food prices and and gas prices being set artificially low which creates a shortage. Prices that fluctuate under supply and demand is not because of greed, it keeps certain people from using or over using a service when we have a scarcity and thats the point, its keeps greed from businesses and greed from everyday people under check. Regulations messes with this.
Drug Traders exist because of Government Regulations on Drugs. If government didn't ban the use of certain drugs then we wouldn't have a drug cartel problem.
Last edited by SG854,
Theres month by month unemployment statistics during the Great Depression compiled by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway you can look up.
- Stock Market Crashes 1929 unemployment goes up to 9%.
- Then unemployment gradually drops till reaches 6.3% in June 1930.
- Smoot Hawley Tariff announced in which over 1,000 economists warned against, and unemployment was still 6.3% when this proposition was announced.
- Then in November 1930, 5 months after Smoot Hawley Tariffs bill was passed, unemployment shot up to 11.6%.
Unemployment didn't reach the double digits in the 1 year after the Stock Market Crashed. It wasn't until the Tariffs came in that it reached double digits.
Last edited by SG854,
More like the dustbowl incident put a lot of farmers out of business and aggravated the situation from the Great Depression. Look it up. 21% of farmers went on government assistance. I also know plenty of Economists that said that the great recession of 2008 was not going to happen. Remember Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Ah... So one of the Chicago Boys. I admit I haven't read it, but I have read the shock doctrine , where Naomi klein dissects and flat out destroys the used tactics. It's true that it helped economy in the way it was traditionally measured, but had the "side effect" of mass unemployment (meaning : strong rise in inequality) and crippling the state. Usually in favor for American companies who take over privatized nuts companies (gas, water, oil), who then jack up the prices. She also points out that the programs always lead to strong opposition from the local population, to the point where the programs can never be implemented unless the population is distracted by a(suggested prefabricated) disaster.
... And then the financial crisis happened. As I see it, the government pays the referee in a match between the different companies (large multinationals, mostly). Aforementioned tactics left governments blind, gagged, tied up and removed from the playing field because that school of thinking believed it would make the market more free. And in a way that's true : free doesn't mean fair, and not did that unfair playing happened. Banks were free to push people into buying houses they couldn't afford, because they were able to leverage not only people savings but also their current homes. They sold risky investments - gambling, really - to people without telling them the real risk would be upon them when they would be unable to pay up. Unfortunately, that meant that the housing market was obligated to keep on growing. That didn't happen and the banks found themselves in a position of such enormous loss that it would drag the entire economy down because they believed in what was essentially a lie.
I can't really say sewell is wrong. But I will say that his line of thinking has had way more attempts than can be considered ethical, and it never panned out right. Well .. For those not owning large multinationals, that is.
The 2008 Recession was not predicted because there was no data for it. Mortgages was usually a fixed interest rate and a 20% price of home down payment. We have plenty of data on this on different economic situations spanning decades. The no down payments variable interest rates and other creative methods to make housing affordable was something that was new. So it couldn't have been predicted by anyone since we have no data on it.
Apply to Authority is not a fallacy if I provide evidence and debate points myself. I'm only stating it in response to your claim that you are a history major (which is contradictory on your side to criticize me of apply to authority fallacy) and to add credibility, but it is by no means my entire argument. Stating credibility are only fallacies if its used as the only argument and not as a supplement to the argument.
I don't know what point you were trying to make with the dust bowl and while it made the depression worse it was not a direct cause of it. If farmers had better farming methods then the droughts causing the dust bowl wouldn't have been as bad.
There were restrictions placed by the government to prevent the banks from having multiple branches and if it wasn't for these restrictions the failure rate would have been a lot lower. Canada went through the same 30's depression we did but not 1 bank failed, they didn't have the same law restrictions we had. If you have a bank located solely in a wheat growing community it is exposed to all the fluctuations in the wheat market since lenders and depositors are people dependent on the price of wheat. If your unable to branch out to other areas like steel producing and furniture making areas and something happens to the wheat industry then your bank will fail since you have no diversified risks, which leads to less risk overall. Government is to blame for the bank failures in the U.S. 90% of bank failures was in small communities and almost all were in states with laws against branch banking. Even with large amount of Banks failing in the U.S. banks that did have diversified risks, with no laws restricting branch banking had a much lower failure rate.
The was a similar stock market crash in 1987 comparable to the Great Depression crash and Ronald Regan did nothing despite all the criticisms he got urging him to do something, and instead of a depression we got 2 decades growth and low inflation. There is similar results of doing nothing and letting the economy recover on its own in 1820's England. More government spending didn't solve Japans "lost decade" of the 1990's.
If FDR's New Deal was never implemented then the economy would have returned to its normal level of employment and output by 1936. The New Deal instead prolonged the depression.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Thomas Sowell is actually Black he's not Chilean. And he's actually 88 years old right now. I'll read the shock doctrine and see what I think about it.
Last edited by SG854,
Wait...I get it: you haven't followed the hyperlink. "Chicago boys" isn't a reference to either his origin or age but to the school of thought (popularized by Milton Friedman) he ascribes to.
I didn't know what you meant by, "Ah... So one of the Chicago Boys" comment. I did take a quick glance but didn't read much....thanks for that random piece of irrelevant info?
Wait...I get it: you haven't followed the hyperlink. "Chicago boys" isn't a reference to either his origin or age but to the school of thought (popularized by Milton Friedman) he ascribes to.
So chilean society became the richest in Latin America. And there was a rise in economic income inequality, which people complained. I don't know much about the Chilean Economy but I wonder if the criticisms are the same criticisms U.S. make about the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, which is not true.
For example there is a complaint that the middle class is disappearing which is true, but people are assuming they are getting poorer which is not true. Here is a graph, the middle class and poor are getting richer. Middle is disappearing into the upper class, and poor disappearing into the middle class. There is a growing wealth gap between the top 20% and bottom 20% because more people are in the top 20% today then they were 40 years ago. Quintiles are not equal slices of the population. To reach top 20% you need an income of more than $100,000 a year. https://thefederalistpapers.org/eco...is-shrinking-and-heres-why-thats-a-good-thing
Also 73% of Americans were in the top 20% ($100,000 or more) at some time in there lives, and about half will experience poverty which they classify the bottom 20%. People aren't stuck in these brackets and people move in and out of them. Which shows great income mobility. https://www.aei.org/publication/evi...were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/print/
Hardly people stay poor or rich for most of their lives, they move up and down depending on education and experience. More likely when your young your at the bottom 20%, and when your older your at the top 20%. Here is a comparison of Americans compared to the world. 56% were in the high income group (more then $50 a day), and 32% were in the upper middle income group ($20-$50). The majority of Americans are well off materially, so much so that obesity and overweight is more common among the poor then the rich. Poor Americans today would be consider well off compared to all Americans in the past, majority of poor have smart phones. Only kings had these luxury in the past minus the phones. And poor is however statisticians want it to mean, poor in the U.S. is what they call middle class in Mexico. U.S. is in the top list with less regulations and more economic freedom and is among the richest countries. Countries with lots of regulations are among the poorest. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/09/how-americans-compare-with-the-global-middle-class/
There is a history of countries against middle man minorities like the Chinese in Southeast Asia, Indians and Pakistans in East Africa, Lebanese in West Africa, and Jews in Europe, where people thought they were oppressing them and rigged the economy against them because they didn't understanding the important role they played as middle men. And when they chased them out their economies collapsed. Jews had the holocaust in Germany. I wonder if the growing rich poor complain in Chile is the same feminist complaint that women are getting payed 76 cents to the dollar a man makes which is not true.
Last edited by SG854,
ARM mortgages with no down payment due to relaxation of FHA regulations had nothing to do with 2008 ...
FYI, It was predicted by people who saw folks getting houses with a sub 500 credit score and no job. .
You have a retarded agenda that ignores common sense (and facts) to push an ideology that's been shown inept at managing a society. Frankly, I think you read a few books, it galvanized you and turned you into a psuedo-Will Hunting. I have no idea why you chose this site to profess your love for all things conservative.
Last edited by brickmii82,
D
Deleted User
Guest
Wait, I thought that was the result of the government forcing banks to give people loans? NtM, but no sane bank would've allowed that kind of behavior under normal circumstances, but due to government handouts... This is all crony capitalism man.
Yes, banks have always shown to be fine examples of business ethics...
Stop trying to find cop outs for greediness. At the end of the day, again, laws=/=regulations. They wouldn’t be there if people could just play nice. The govt never forced them to do anything but play fair. Then we gave them a break because they did for awhile, and lo and behold. They fucked us.
My point is, don't create straw men arguments in lieu of the real issue, mankind is fucking shady. If you don’t believe it, I repeat, start a cocaine business in Mexico in “competition” with the Sinaloa Cartel. Let’s see how that unregulated capitalism works out.
Stop trying to find cop outs for greediness. At the end of the day, again, laws=/=regulations. They wouldn’t be there if people could just play nice. The govt never forced them to do anything but play fair. Then we gave them a break because they did for awhile, and lo and behold. They fucked us.
My point is, don't create straw men arguments in lieu of the real issue, mankind is fucking shady. If you don’t believe it, I repeat, start a cocaine business in Mexico in “competition” with the Sinaloa Cartel. Let’s see how that unregulated capitalism works out.
I only find time now to properly read it (sorry).
While it's certainly widely different than the literature that I've been reading thus far (Klein, Stiglitz, Varoufakis), I have to admit that it's a story that seems pretty backed up by facts and arguments. So either Sowell or Klein is wrong (the other two don't go into that much specifics to really contradict the above), or the reality is harder to grasp than either indicates.
In any case: I'll put Sowell on my "to read" list. After all...my sources might be wrong or missing things as well.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
By the power of Florida Man, I have the power!!! *Lifts up meth pipe* Meth Man!!! lol -
@
BakerMan:
Guys, I just learned my little brother is in the hospital because he had a seizure last night. -
-
-
@
BakerMan:
Just found out he's doing alright, doing a lot of complaining too, rightfully so. Who wouldn't complain after having a seizure and being hospitalized?+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
BakerMan:
well, i'm glad he seems to be doing fine, and ig i'm going to start spewing goofy shit again
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
