Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
There has always been trade and value exchange, capitalism is something new, a fascist system that dehumanizes humanity.
America Lost 129,000 Millionaires in 2011
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
There has always been trade and value exchange, capitalism is something new, a fascist system that dehumanizes humanity.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He means laissez faire but you knew that anyway!
No, I think he was serious, there was no smiley face!
LOL... Um. No... It was a crack on all the wars on nouns out there. We all know how well the War on Poverty worked, the War on Drugs, a clear indication on how wars on nouns normally work... It is amazing how well the War on Capitalism is working. 129,000 less millionaires! A Great Victory!
I wonder if she remembers the War on Cats we waged on this board for quite some time. And the War on Children... But making jokes like that is bad now, so I doubt it. Clearly the only thing I could possibly be thinking of is the War on Women (which never entered my mind when I made the post, although the War on Cats did)...
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Yes, but his Ohioan grammar aside, he's still being retarded. Hence my stating that he was using a word that does not fit the way he wants it to.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Well, with all the talk about the changes of the new Dem Party, it would be nice if they would drop the anti-liberal economic bullshit pioneered by Jefferson and Jerkson.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Surely that is exactly what a Romney presidency would be, if you thought that Obama was beholden to Wall Street then Romney would be ten times worse.
Considering the amount of money that has passed between Obama and Wall Street, I find that 10x worse claim financially impossible.......
cancel2 2022
Canceled
There is a feeling of déjà vu here. As somebody much wiser than me said before now, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
[SIZE=+1]EVENTS OF THE 1920s[/SIZE]
Most historians agree that the stock market crash of October 1929 did not "cause" the Great Depression. It was the most visible and symbolic event ushering in the worst of it all, but the economy actually began sliding downhill years before.
The reigning economic philosophy of the Roaring Twenties was laissez-faire ("leave it alone" or "let it be.") This was the belief that markets always know best and that government should not regulate or otherwise interfere with their self-correcting operations. The policy was most strictly applied during the Republican presidencies of Warren Harding (1920-1923) and Calvin Coolidge (1923-1928).
Herbert Hoover (president from 1929-1933) also held a deep faith in individualism and the magic of the market, but was not quite the laissez-faire ideologue that Coolidge and Harding were. Just before Roosevelt and his advisors took over the White House in 1933, Hoover was to complain that the "brain trust and their superiors are now announcing to the world that the social thesis of laissez-faire died on March 4. I wish they would add a professor of history to the brain trust."
In fact, Hoover did respond to the deepening crisis through government action. As the time line in the next section will show, however, almost all this intervention occurred during his last year in office, long after the damage had already been done. Hoover lost the election in a landslide because the public perceived he had not done enough to arrest the plunging economy.
However, if you look at the economy even before Hoover took office in March 1929, or the stock market crash seven months later, it becomes clear the Depression had deep roots that extended back many years.
In describing the Roaring Twenties, it is interesting to note that they bear many striking resemblances to the 1980s. Both eras were dominated by Republican presidents who slashed government regulation and anti-trust enforcement. Both saw a wave of mergers and the rise of monopolies. Both saw labor unions decline in membership and influence. During the Roaring Twenties, the top tax rate was cut from 73 to 25 percent; during the 80s, this was cut from 70 to 28 percent. Both eventually allowed the richest 1 percent to own 40 percent of the nation's wealth, with middle class income either stagnating or declining. Both saw disinflation caused by tight monetary policies, sinking commodity prices and high real interest rates. Both saw the stock market soar to unrealistic heights amidst a reckless orgy of debt. And both saw massive stock market crashes (in '29 and '87) as the speculation bubble burst. Fortunately, the Fed today knows how to lessen the severity of recessions, which may explain why the recession of 90-92 did not worsen into a depression.
Laissez-faire in the Roaring Twenties created an economy filled with paradoxes and inequality. While manufacturing, finance and services all enjoyed high times, agriculture, mining and energy struggled with their own depressions throughout the decade. The stock market would go through the roof, despite the fact that the economy itself was structurally flawed. Phenomenal economic growth was centered in only two industries: construction and automobile manufacturing. Even these two star industries would begin contracting in the year before the stock market crash.
The banking sector is a vivid example of the results of deregulation and unenforced anti-trust laws. The biggest banks never did better. Other banks found themselves in constant trouble, with 600 banks failing each year. Although most were conservative in making their loans, many did not have adequate reserves to cover defaults, which were especially common among farmers. The lack of a banking watchdog allowed some bankers to speculate wildly on the stock market or make foolish loans. There was also no Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that protected and regulated customers' banking deposits. As a result, customers frequently paid for the sins of their bankers. And the lack of a federal safety net often turned temporary banking troubles into permanent bankruptcies.
For most of the Roaring Twenties, the economy grew as long as its capital facilities grew (factories, warehouses, heavy equipment, etc.). But by the time the stock market crashed, there was so much plant space producing so many goods that the backlog of inventory was three times greater than normal. Half of America was living at or below the minimum subsistence level and could not afford to buy these products. Factory workers were paid so little that they often could not afford the goods they were producing.
According to Say's Law, "supply creates its own demand." A glut of goods on the market is supposed to be impossible, because the public's demand is infinite; therefore, there can only be shortages of supply. Say's Law is a favorite among conservatives, even though mainstream economists debunked this 18th century "law" over 60 years ago. It is a fact of economics that all recessions are preceded by a glut of goods on the market, and this was especially true before the stock market crash of '29. Supply was everywhere; demand nowhere. Why? Because a growing number of poor people chose to hoard their money rather than spend it. This is a rational anti-poverty strategy for individuals, but it has unintended and damaging consequences for the group.
The worsening of the economy in the years before the stock market crash is troubling for conservative defenders of the Roaring Twenties. The economic policies were strictly Republican; there was no Big Government to blame for the onset of the Depression. Money was based on the gold standard, yet another pet conservative ideology. The tax burden was the lightest since World War I to this day. Yet even before October 29, 1929, it was clear that the economy was in trouble and that things were only going to get worse.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Events1920s.htm
[SIZE=+1]EVENTS OF THE 1920s[/SIZE]
Most historians agree that the stock market crash of October 1929 did not "cause" the Great Depression. It was the most visible and symbolic event ushering in the worst of it all, but the economy actually began sliding downhill years before.
The reigning economic philosophy of the Roaring Twenties was laissez-faire ("leave it alone" or "let it be.") This was the belief that markets always know best and that government should not regulate or otherwise interfere with their self-correcting operations. The policy was most strictly applied during the Republican presidencies of Warren Harding (1920-1923) and Calvin Coolidge (1923-1928).
Herbert Hoover (president from 1929-1933) also held a deep faith in individualism and the magic of the market, but was not quite the laissez-faire ideologue that Coolidge and Harding were. Just before Roosevelt and his advisors took over the White House in 1933, Hoover was to complain that the "brain trust and their superiors are now announcing to the world that the social thesis of laissez-faire died on March 4. I wish they would add a professor of history to the brain trust."
In fact, Hoover did respond to the deepening crisis through government action. As the time line in the next section will show, however, almost all this intervention occurred during his last year in office, long after the damage had already been done. Hoover lost the election in a landslide because the public perceived he had not done enough to arrest the plunging economy.
However, if you look at the economy even before Hoover took office in March 1929, or the stock market crash seven months later, it becomes clear the Depression had deep roots that extended back many years.
In describing the Roaring Twenties, it is interesting to note that they bear many striking resemblances to the 1980s. Both eras were dominated by Republican presidents who slashed government regulation and anti-trust enforcement. Both saw a wave of mergers and the rise of monopolies. Both saw labor unions decline in membership and influence. During the Roaring Twenties, the top tax rate was cut from 73 to 25 percent; during the 80s, this was cut from 70 to 28 percent. Both eventually allowed the richest 1 percent to own 40 percent of the nation's wealth, with middle class income either stagnating or declining. Both saw disinflation caused by tight monetary policies, sinking commodity prices and high real interest rates. Both saw the stock market soar to unrealistic heights amidst a reckless orgy of debt. And both saw massive stock market crashes (in '29 and '87) as the speculation bubble burst. Fortunately, the Fed today knows how to lessen the severity of recessions, which may explain why the recession of 90-92 did not worsen into a depression.
Laissez-faire in the Roaring Twenties created an economy filled with paradoxes and inequality. While manufacturing, finance and services all enjoyed high times, agriculture, mining and energy struggled with their own depressions throughout the decade. The stock market would go through the roof, despite the fact that the economy itself was structurally flawed. Phenomenal economic growth was centered in only two industries: construction and automobile manufacturing. Even these two star industries would begin contracting in the year before the stock market crash.
The banking sector is a vivid example of the results of deregulation and unenforced anti-trust laws. The biggest banks never did better. Other banks found themselves in constant trouble, with 600 banks failing each year. Although most were conservative in making their loans, many did not have adequate reserves to cover defaults, which were especially common among farmers. The lack of a banking watchdog allowed some bankers to speculate wildly on the stock market or make foolish loans. There was also no Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that protected and regulated customers' banking deposits. As a result, customers frequently paid for the sins of their bankers. And the lack of a federal safety net often turned temporary banking troubles into permanent bankruptcies.
For most of the Roaring Twenties, the economy grew as long as its capital facilities grew (factories, warehouses, heavy equipment, etc.). But by the time the stock market crashed, there was so much plant space producing so many goods that the backlog of inventory was three times greater than normal. Half of America was living at or below the minimum subsistence level and could not afford to buy these products. Factory workers were paid so little that they often could not afford the goods they were producing.
According to Say's Law, "supply creates its own demand." A glut of goods on the market is supposed to be impossible, because the public's demand is infinite; therefore, there can only be shortages of supply. Say's Law is a favorite among conservatives, even though mainstream economists debunked this 18th century "law" over 60 years ago. It is a fact of economics that all recessions are preceded by a glut of goods on the market, and this was especially true before the stock market crash of '29. Supply was everywhere; demand nowhere. Why? Because a growing number of poor people chose to hoard their money rather than spend it. This is a rational anti-poverty strategy for individuals, but it has unintended and damaging consequences for the group.
The worsening of the economy in the years before the stock market crash is troubling for conservative defenders of the Roaring Twenties. The economic policies were strictly Republican; there was no Big Government to blame for the onset of the Depression. Money was based on the gold standard, yet another pet conservative ideology. The tax burden was the lightest since World War I to this day. Yet even before October 29, 1929, it was clear that the economy was in trouble and that things were only going to get worse.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Events1920s.htm
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Which would, AGAIN, not be Lassizes Faire. Do you have another windmill?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So the likelihood that Romney would refuse any attempt to regulate the casino banks and allow them to carry on as normal is not a form of laissez faire, to your mind?
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Will The Fed Rescue Investors Again?
June 4, 2012 | By Robert Morris | Reply
http://dynamicwealthreport.com/will-the-fed-rescue-investors-again/
June 4, 2012 | By Robert Morris | Reply
The month of May was a brutal one for the stock market. After hitting a four-year high of 13,338 on May 1st, the Dow Jones Industrials went on a gut-wrenching downward slide.
The Blue Chip index gave up more than 820 points or 6.2% for the month. It was the Dow’s worst monthly performance in two years.
What happened?
Uncertainty over the ongoing financial crisis in Europe spurred many investors to shift money out of stocks and into US Treasury bonds.
A good number are worried Greece will soon be forced to exit the European Union. A recent poll showed the far-left Syriza party, which opposes bailouts and steep budget cuts, is gaining support amongst Greek voters.
If Greece is indeed kicked out of the EU, the expulsion would likely push the European economy into a multi-year recession.
And we’re not talking about a run of the mill economic slowdown either. According to Fitch Ratings, we could be in store for a recession as deep as the one in 2008-2009.
But that’s not all…
Investors are also beginning to worry the US and Chinese economies aren’t strong enough to prevent the entire global economy from sliding headlong into recession.
On Friday, the latest monthly jobs report showed the US economy is adding jobs at a slower pace. Only 69,000 jobs were created in May. And the unemployment rate rose from 8.1% to 8.2%.
To make matters worse, the lackluster jobs data came on the heels of a disappointing GDP number… the US economy grew just 1.9% in the first quarter of 2012.
And while China’s red hot growth helped bolster the global economy in 2010 and 2011, there is growing evidence things will be different this time around.
The most recent manufacturing data show factory output slowed sharply in May. China’s Purchasing Managers’ Index dropped from 53.3 in April to 50.4 in May. And the number came in below analysts’ estimates of 51.5, suggesting growth is slowing even faster than previously believed.
But as bad as it sounds, all is not lost…
The rapid deterioration in global economic conditions is boosting the odds for another round of quantitative easing (QE) from the US Federal Reserve.
On Friday, CNBC asked 60 money managers, economists, and investment strategists what the chances are for QE. A stunning 58% of responders said they expect the Fed will launch a third round of quantitative easing (QE3) in the next 12 months.
That’s up from just 33% of responders six weeks ago.
What’s even more surprising, a good number of those expecting QE3 believe we won’t have to wait very long for the Fed to act.
42% of them expect the central bank will announce QE3 at their next policy meeting in June. And another 47% believe the Fed will announce QE3 when they get together in July.
CNBC further reports the experts are expecting the next round of QE to total $451 billion on average.
No question about it, QE3 would be music to investors’ ears.
The measure would help drive down long term interest rates and inject liquidity into the financial system. Plus, it would go a long way toward restoring investor confidence in the market.
Best of all, QE3 should get stocks moving higher in a hurry.
Remember, the first round of QE sparked a major stock market rally in the second half of 2010. And QE2 had an identical effect on the market in the second half of 2011.
http://dynamicwealthreport.com/will-the-fed-rescue-investors-again/
Last edited:
You have zero clue, regulations that aren't informed don't mean dick!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Is this an example of an inciteful, well balanced analysis from the self proclaimed MBA hotshot?
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...have-a-good-jobs-record&p=1012571#post1012571
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Laissez Faire mean no regulation or government interference. That has not EVER been the case in America. Because certain banks are allowed to carry on more than others is negligance and favoritism, not Laissez faire.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes, well that worked really well in preventing the meltdown of 2008. Just imagine if there was full-on laissez faire capitalism at work, as certain people on here like to advocate.
This fraud and the Enron fraud should have been caught with existing regulation. When wall street and Washington own the regulators adding more uninforced regulation is just buying tools votes.