Jon Stewart Exposes the Media Bias Against Ron Paul

[Cyclone Ranger]

Sorry no. The economy was essentially flat from 1932 to 1961 when the Kennedy tax cut gave it a brief lift and then it flattened again after the Great Society took effect.

Your knowledge of economic history is very poor: from 1950 to 1970, the economy grew about 3.6% a year.

Until the Reagan tax cuts came down the pike going into full effect by the end of 82 the economy had gained almost nothing since the recession following WWII.

1. Inflation came down because of both the end of the oil embargo and Paul Volcker's monetary policies. It certainly had nothing to do with tax cuts.u

2. The idea that we gained almost nothing since the end of WWII is laughable.

[garyd]

I stand corrected. It actual did grow from 1950 to 1971. However 3.2% on average is essentially nothing compared to the growth from 1869 to 1918. When the gdp went from a raw value from the chart of 4,500 to nearly 12,000 or nearly 266 percent or more than 6% a year over a forty year period. Please note I couldn't find the reference on the chart as to whether we were talking in terms of thousands of dollars or something else. Noe theless adding an equal number of zeros on to each value would not change the percentages in any case.

[Dick Tator]

Your knowledge of economic history is very poor: from 1950 to 1970, the economy grew about 3.6% per year.

What was the population growth during that time?

[fat mike]

I stand corrected. It actual did grow from 1950 to 1971. However 3.2% on average is essentially nothing compared to the growth from 1869 to 1918. When the gdp went from a raw value from the chart of 4,500 to nearly 12,000 or nearly 266 percent or more than 6% a year over a forty year period. Please note I couldn't find the reference on the chart as to whether we were talking in terms of thousands of dollars or something else. Noe theless adding an equal number of zeros on to each value would not change the percentages in any case.

agrarian economy undergoing industrialization vs an already capitalized economy?apples and oranges..

[garyd]

Not hardly Mike. The decline in the number of small farmers began before the civil war and continued on to the present day. the North's greatest advantage lay in the fact that they had far more raliroad track and rolling stock than did the confederacy. The north at least was well on its way toward industrializtion before the Civil War. It merely picked up the pace during and afterward.

[fat mike]

Not hardly Mike. The decline in the number of small farmers began before the civil war and continued on to the present day. the North's greatest advantage lay in the fact that they had far more raliroad track and rolling stock than did the confederacy. The north at least was well on its way toward industrializtion before the Civil War. It merely picked up the pace during and afterward.

youre not proving the drive to industry wasnt significant enough to account for those numbers-youve admitted "it picked up the pace" youre trying to make this a political argument

[hadit]

1. Inflation came down because of both the end of the oil embargo and Paul Volcker's monetary policies. It certainly had nothing to do with tax cuts.u

The Reagan tax cuts accomplished what liberals only dream about and can never demonstrate. Reagan da man!

[garyd]

In most respects it is a political argument, mike. The argument is about how necessary government is as a means of creating economic growth.

[Cyclone Ranger]

The Reagan tax cuts accomplished what liberals only dream about and can never demonstrate. Reagan da man!

They accomplished absolutely nothing, as even Milton Friedman and David Stockman have pointed out.

For future reference, tax cuts for the rich do nothing but induce recessions like the the Bush Sr recession.

[Cyclone Ranger]

I stand corrected. It actual did grow from 1950 to 1971. However 3.2% on average is essentially nothing compared to the growth from 1869 to 1918.

Of course not. That time-frame marks the Industrial Revolution and the ramp-up of the first globalized economy. No future growth will ever match that.

Nonetheless, 3.6% annualized growth is quite respectable.

[Cyclone Ranger]

What was the population growth during that time?

The post-war baby boom occurred between 1945 and 1964 - and immigration restrictions eased - so it increased pretty significantly.

[86Dùde]

And we're paying for your filthy boomer existence every damn day. Can't wait until your generation is forgotten memory. You're a worthless pile of greedy filth, most of you anyway. Not remotely worthy of the sacrifices your parents made.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Unfortunately, we had to pay for your filthy Gen-X existence. You're welcome.

[hadit]

They accomplished absolutely nothing, as even Milton Friedman and David Stockman have pointed out.

For future reference, tax cuts for the rich do nothing but induce recessions like the the Bush Sr recession.

The Bush tax cuts revitalized the economy after 9/11. The Kennedy tax cuts did their part. I see a cycle. Cut taxes, increase revenues, wildly increase spending, raise taxes, kill economic growth, rinse and repeat.

Lesson learned, letting productive people keep more of their rightfully earned money benefits everyone.

[Cyclone Ranger]

What revitalized the economy after 9/11 was:

1. NAFTA.
2. The impact of the spending on the bail-outs, DHS, Iraq etc.

Again, tax cuts for the rich accomplish nothing because, as Milton Friedman indicated in his Permanent Income Hypothesis, tax cuts are saved, not spent or invested. At least when the government has the money, it actually spends it.

[Šñøü†ê®]

^Wowsa

[Dick Tator]

Did Cowpunk just say Iraq benefited the economy?

[hadit]

What revitalized the economy after 9/11 was:

1. NAFTA.

Uhhhh, NAFTA was signed into law on 12/8/1993, and took effect 1/1/1994, 8 years BEFORE 9/11. The tax cuts did far more than NAFTA to keep the economy from imploding.

2. The impact of the spending on the bail-outs, DHS, Iraq etc.

You'll reach into any alphabet bag to avoid acknowledging the truth. Tax cuts generate economic activity, which generates everything else positive about finance.

Again, tax cuts for the rich accomplish nothing because, as Milton Friedman indicated in his Permanent Income Hypothesis, tax cuts are saved, not spent or invested. At least when the government has the money, it actually spends it.

Money saved is money made available for investment, which generates permanent growth and more jobs. Government spending is largely wasted on cronyism (see current admin) and generates little of lasting value (see last massive stimulus). Reagan didn't need massive spending to spur the economy. His tax cuts did the job admirably.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Did Cowpunk just say Iraq benefited the economy?

No, I did.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Uhhhh, NAFTA was signed into law on 12/8/1993, and took effect 1/1/1994, 8 years BEFORE 9/11.

Irrelevant. It continued benefiting the economy through Bush II's presidency.

The tax cuts did far more than NAFTA to keep the economy from imploding.

Bullshit.

Tax cuts generate economic activity, which generates everything else positive about finance.

Tax cuts generate savings not spending, which tends to generate recession.

Money saved is money made available for investment, which generates permanent growth and more jobs.

Irrelevant. What it doesn't generate is DEMAND!

When total production > total demand, a recession results. Saved money = increased production without increased total spending (because saved money isn't spent), so large amounts of excess savings = a recession.

Government spending is largely wasted on cronyism (see current admin)

I would hardly call bailing out key industries decimated by the Bush economic crisis like finance and auto production "cronyism."

and generates little of lasting value (see last massive stimulus). Reagan didn't need massive spending to spur the economy. His tax cuts did the job admirably.

Regan did nothing but happen to be in office when the Oil Embargo ended so the Baby Boomers could reach full employment and the peak of their earning power.

End of story.