What? Then how would they birth the NWO? Peace, Doc
On Nov 15, 7:53 pm, Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the "problem" would fix itself if the damn gov't would stay out of > it. > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Societal Retard > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > I dunno. I'm hearing you, and I'm admittedly a big Krugman fan- the simple > > fact is that the guy has usually been right- but this economic catastrophe > > is to serious to not take all ideas into account. What frustrates me is > > that half of the original bailout money is *already gone, *most of it > > apparently going to AIG, but no one actually knows where it went for sure- > > Henry Paulson won't divulge any "details!" Amazing. > > > If we don't just fix the problem, and keep throwing hundreds of billions > > more out in band aid bailouts (Freddie and Frannie are going to need 500 > > Billion to solve their sub prime problems, it's now being reported ) we'll > > wind up with no money and will have failed to stop the crisis. > > > On the other hand, if Krugman's wrong and we spend to much to fix it, we'll > > open up a whole new set of problems because we'll be broke and won't be able > > to even pay for basic infrastructure repairs, much less pay SSI and Medicare > > costs. > > > We're tottering perilously close to a bad place; If our currency loses to > > much more of it's value, then foreign nations may choose to invest the > > profits they make from exports (Hello China) in their own national banks > > instead of investing in US treasury bonds, while also deciding to sell all > > the treasury bonds they hold in the Federal Reserve now overnight because > > the money will be, for the first time, worth more in their national banks > > (or in another nation's bank) and earn more in interest elsewhere than it > > would if invested in US Treasury bonds. > > > A HUGE part of our economy relies on the money the US earns by being, > > basically, the world's banker. If that arrangement changes because the > > dollar becomes worth less and less, it would spark an economic meltdown that > > might make the depression look like a beach party... > > > We have to ditch our left vs right blinders in this time, and try to find > > to best solution. > > > Scary stuff. > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: Travis > >> Subject: Krugman's Prescription for Disaster > >> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, > > >> *Krugman's Prescription for Disaster > >> *by David T. Beito > > >> Paul Krugman calls for Obama and his advisors to push an expanded version > >> of the New Deal (see the link below by Mark R. > >> Hatlie<http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/blog/2008/11/new-new-deal-krugman...>). > >> According to Krugman, they should boldly throw caution to the > >> winds<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?th&emc=th>and > >> *"figure out how much help they think the economy needs, than add 50 > >> percent. It's much better in a depressed economy, to err on the side of too > >> much stimulus." > > >> *Obama should reject this advice. If he listens to Krugman, the likely > >> result will be a wave of stagflation that makes the experience of the 1970s > >> look mild by comparison. Such a prescription would both continue and > >> accelerate Bush's fiscally reckless policy of propping up malinvestments > >> through massive increases in spending, deficits, and easy credit by the > >> Federal Reserve. As the continuing fall of the stock market and the rise of > >> unemployment indicate, more bailouts and more "shock socialism" do not > >> work. > >> Obama made a fatal mistake in failing to oppose the aptly described > >> billionaire bailout. > > >> This call for a hyper New Deal rests on a flawed view of history. > >> According Krugman, the only reason Roosevelt failed to bring recovery was > >> because he spent too little, not too much. At the same time, he tries to > >> have it both ways by stating that the crisis of the 1930s would have been > >> "much worse" without the New Deal. > > >> A key problem with Krugman's analysis is that it does not adequately > >> explain why the decade-long New Deal era depression lasted so much longer > >> than previous depressions. Prior to the 1930s, depressions (as in the sharp > >> and short downturn of 1921 and 1922) had typically lasted for two to three > >> years. The predominant anti-depression policy before Hoover and Roosevelt > >> was to cut spending, balance budgets, and let prices, profits, and wages > >> readjust to more sustainable levels. Yet Krugman regards this older > >> approach > >> for curing depressions as "much worse" than the New Deal. The logical > >> implication of his argument is that the New Deal, modest as it was, would > >> have made the Great Depression at least somewhat shorter than previous > >> downturns. The fact that it did not stands as a stunning indictment of > >> FDR's > >> policies. > > >> The unprecedented duration of the depression also represents an indictment > >> of Herbert Hoover's approach. This was because Hoover intervened too much > >> not, as Krugman would have it, too little. Krugman's article neglects the > >> relevant point that Hoover had pursued a mini-New Deal from 1929 to 1933 > >> via > >> programs such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Federal > >> Farm > >> Board. It was Hoover, not Roosevelt, who was the first president to reject > >> the advice of the "leave it alone liquidationists." Instead of letting > >> malinvestments (or toxic assets in today's parlance) readjust at a lower > >> level, he desperately propped them up. In great part because of Hoover's > >> high-wage policies, real wages were actually 12 percent higher in 1932 than > >> in 1929! Meanwhile, of course, unemployment advanced to record levels as > >> businesses saved on payroll costs by laying off workers. Perhaps if Hoover > >> had listened to the advice of the so-called "liquidationists," the > >> depression would have been over by 1931. > > >> More troubling, at least for opponents of war, is Krugman's dubious > >> contention that *"What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the > >> enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided > >> a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy's needs."* The evidence does > >> not support the view that that war was beneficial for the economy. In a > >> seminal article for the Journal of Economic History, Robert Higgs > >> convincingly > >> challenged <http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138> the > >> Keynesian theory of World War II as put forward by Krugman and others. > > >> While unemployment disappeared during the war, it was hardly a step > >> forward. Moving men and women from the unemployment lines to the killing > >> fields of Anzio did not represent economic progress in any meaningful > >> sense. > >> During the war, Americans at home suffered from rationing, shortages, more > >> accidents on the job, longer hours, and many other measures of economic > >> deprivation. Moreover, as Higgs points out, *"real personal consumption > >> declined. So did real private investment. From 1941 to 1943 real gross > >> private domestic investment plunged by 64 percent; during the four years of > >> the war it never rose above 55 percent of its 1941 level; only in 1946 did > >> it reach a new high." > > >> *According to > >> Higgs<http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_4_higgs.pdf>, genuine > >> prosperity did not begin to return until the last months of 1945 > >> and 1946. This prosperity occurred under a policy of reverse Keynesianism > >> which included massive reductions in spending because of demoblization, > >> rapid steps toward price decontrol, and scaled back deficit spending. > > >> Higgs sums it up<http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2188> > >> : > > >> World War II, the so-called Good War, has been a fount of historical > >> fallacies. One of the greatest – and one of the most pernicious for > >> subsequent policymakers – is the notion that prosperity prevailed during > >> the > >> war. Although Americans might have been dying in the Pacific and European > >> theaters of war, people on the home front actually benefited from the war, > >> because it propelled the economy at long last out of the Great Depression. > >> This view of the war would be sufficiently egregious if it were true, but > >> despite the claims of historians for the past half century, it is not true. > > >> Obama's best hope to bring lasting recovery is to let the economy go > >> through a short, but sharp, readjustment. He needs to remove the > >> malivestments not, contra Krugman, perpetuate them. Obama can facilitate > >> this readjustment to a more sustainable level by cancelling the bailout, > >> cutting spending, and pruning deficits. Another worthy goal would be to > >> dismantle the Federal Reserve which helped to create this mess through its > >> easy credit policies. > > >> Most of all, however, Obama should end our costly empire by closing down > >> our overseas bases and bringing home the troops. Only then, can we start to > >> get our financial house in order and move towards genuine economic well > >> being. > > >>http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ > >>beito4.html<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/beito4.html> > >> __._,_.___ Messages in this topic > >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tsowell/message/5386;_ylc=X3oDMTM0cWcyc...> > >> (1) Reply (via web post) > >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tsowell/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwdXRudnN1BF9TA...>| > >> Start a new topic > >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tsowell/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNWVxbGNlBF9TA...> > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
