It was certainly more than Lend-lease. By 1940 the US was building
new Army bases in the South. Maybe started by 1939. This wasn't
trivial.
It puzzled me that Casey Mulligan has risen out of Chicago -- to use a
sports metaphor, the bench isn't deep there. Or maybe the front line
are all keeping their heads down because they realize they don't know
what they are talking about.
Casey Mulligan, recall, is the fellow who tried to cover McCain's
claim that the economy was fine with an Oct 2008 Op Ed in the NY Times
that began badly and got worse:
October 10, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
An Economy You Can Bank On
By CASEY B. MULLIGAN
Chicago
THE Treasury Department is now thinking about using some of the $700
billion it has been given to rescue Wall Street to buy ownership
stakes in American banks. The idea is that banking is so central to
the American economy that the government is justified in virtually
nationalizing much of the industry in order to save us from a
potential depression.
There are two faulty assumptions here. First, saving Americas banks
wont save the economy. And second, the economy doesnt really need
saving. Its stronger than we think.
Gene Coyle
On Aug 19, 2009, at 6:45 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
you're on track, I believe. I recently read a screed by Barro in which
he pooh-poohs the impact of government spending increases during WW2
on employment. His focus seemed to be entirely on the period after the
US had attained something very much like "full employment." As you
say, the US war effort started earlier, before Pearl Harbor, with
lend-lease and the like. Also, the build-up to the war in Europe
likely increased US exports.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Bill Lear<[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, August 17, 2009 at 14:22:19 (-0700) Michael Perelman
writes:
I thought Dean looked just fine. A more animated presentation
would have
lost some people.
They both appeared to be reading from teleprompters and since they
are
not trained actors, their affect was somewhat flat.
But it's rather sad that this should be interesting rather than what
they actually said.
When I watched these videos yesterday, I noticed that the NY times
claimed that about 1,700 persons agreed with Dean Baker, while 800 or
so with Casey Mulligan. I certainly think Baker is an astute fellow,
with the facts on his side in this one, but I don't think this
exchange if fairly judged should be given to Baker, and the numbers
really reflected preconceptions, not outcomes of the debate (no
surprise, really).
Mulligan for example gave a very credible rebuttal to the ENTIRE IDEA
OF A STIMULUS --- talk about going for the jugular! From memory, he
cited Robert Barro, claiming that World War II did not pull us out of
the depression, and that 90% of the money spent in World War II was
well after unemployment dropped to around 4%.
Here's what Baker should have said, and I'm just guessing at the
facts
here:
What Casey Mulligan doesn't seem to understand is that WE WERE
FIGHTING A FUCKING WAR DURING WORLD WAR II, not just stimulating the
economy! First, it's convenient for Mulligan and Barro to date the
start of the war from the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but we were
already
spending money on the war before that. Second, ask Mulligan if the
drop in unemployment came only after or before government spending
---
the answer is ONLY AFTER --- the notion that government spending
"crowded out" private investment is ludicrous --- private spending
had
gone crying to momma from the playing field and sat pouting on the
sidelines while our economy crumbled. Mulligan and Barro know that
the government spent WAY more on the war than was needed merely to
stimulate the economy because WE WERE FIGHTING A FUCKING WAR AGAINST
GERMANY AND JAPAN! We only needed a tiny fraction of war spending to
stimulate the economy. Mulligan and Barro should have their PhDs
revoked and whoever handed out PhDs to these two clowns should be
deported. Anyone who makes these kinds of bogus arguments is a
disgrace to the economics profession.
So, can economists here edit the above paragraph for factual accuracy
and decorum to get it exactly right? Am I on the right track here?
Bill
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
--
Jim Devine / "All science would be superfluous if the form of
appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
