Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[darkrider2]

But it's cool, I realize that there's a certain level of "persecution complex" that comes with the territory. Christians are persecuted (despite being the majority), heterosexuals are persecuted (despite being the majority), whites are persecuted (despite being the majority), males are persecuted (despite being the majority)...

Prejudice can be directed at majorities, you know Though persecution will generally only be on a small scale (like being kicked out of bars or something) with few exceptions (like the screwed up child custody laws being biased against men).

I swear we had a convo about that in life advice. It was awesome but I'm not sure I'm too fond of bringing it back in the election thread (not that I'm accusing you of trying to bring it back, derailing tends to happen quickly) since I don't think its even on the political radar anywhere right now, though I wish it was.

[Flying Dice]

Why is Trollheiming so insistent on conflating the increased income tax rates in the '30s with the Great Depression? I don't recall (and wikipedia appears to support that) there being a single economic theory, widely accepted or otherwise, which considers that to be one of the causes of the GD.

[Reelya]

And taxes went even higher during WWII according to the graphs, and didn't come down again until the mid-60's. The obvious point being that 1941 - 1965 was a mega-boom period. It wasn't tax cuts that gave America that boom, or ended the depression.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Note there was also a recession / big spike in unemployment AFTER Reagan massively dropped taxes in 1981 and 1982. And there was also the early 90's recession, after yet another round of tax cuts.

The moral is that you can't take an isolated data point and say it proves a theory, and conveniently ignore all other data points which contradict that theory.

[Nadaka]

Why is Trollheiming so insistent on conflating the increased income tax rates in the '30s with the Great Depression? I don't recall (and wikipedia appears to support that) there being a single economic theory, widely accepted or otherwise, which considers that to be one of the causes of the GD.

He is talking about when the great depressions recovery slowed as the world built up to WW 2. There is so much shit that happened in 36 that it is impossible to draw a causal relationship between the change in tax rate and the rate of recovery from the great depression.

[Trollheiming]

Why is Trollheiming so insistent on conflating the increased income tax rates in the '30s with the Great Depression? I don't recall (and wikipedia appears to support that) there being a single economic theory, widely accepted or otherwise, which considers that to be one of the causes of the GD.

Read it again. The crash in 1937 that lead to a double-dip was immediately preceeded by tax raises.

It does not offer any speculation that a depression beginning seven years before 1936 was caused by a time-spatial anomaly. But the Depression was long and encompassed various plunges that separately would have been bad news. One of these was identifiably due to bad recovery policy by FDR.

He is talking about when the great depressions recovery slowed as the world built up to WW 2. There is so much shit that happened in 36 that it is impossible to draw a causal relationship between the change in tax rate and the rate of recovery from the great depression.

A short crash of a year's length is not due to the abiding pressures of looming war, however much you wish to conveniently explain it that way. You ought to readily find sources attributing the crash to the tax raises preceeding it. And anyway, war preparation causes GDP increases, as another person pointed out in remarking that 1941-1965 was a "boom" era, although I'd argue that the GDP growth is purely malinvestment in the case of war preparations.

[10ebbor10]

Correlation doesn't imply causality.

[kaijyuu]

It does waggle its eyes and wink suggestively


'Tis a weak argument, to be sure.

[Nadaka]

It does waggle its eyes and wink suggestively


'Tis a weak argument, to be sure.

An incredibly weak argument, again considering everything that was happening in 36. 36 was one of the worst dust bowl years that caused massive economic devastation to agriculture in the us. There was also disturbance to global trade as the powers become more militarized. Etc.

[SealyStar]

The purpose is not stop people from getting wealthy, and in fact it does not. It marginally slows the growth of wealth, though the things it is spent on will as often as not contribute to the rate of growth in wealth as well, so it should more or less be a wash.

The purpose is for those people are receiving the greatest benefits of society (those who have the highest incomes) to pay a fair share for supporting the society that is enriching them.

^ This.

I saw a little discussion politically biased teachers/professors - I'm still in High School (haven't gotten "college liberal" status yet), but I've seen plenty. Like the hilariously right-wing APUSH teacher who rails against Obama the minute he steps out of the classroom... and even a little within it.

It should also be noted that he believes that Kennedy was a corrupt dictator, that he was assassinated by CIA agents in a great conspiracy, and that Nixon was like the second incarnation of Jesus or something... not literally, but he really almost worships the guy. But unusually for a conservative, he thinks Reagan was an opportunistic poser - which is largely correct.

[Reelya]

There were also big federal spending cuts in 1936, and a Federal Reserve tightening of the money supply. I'd say both of those played more of a part than the tax increases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938

[RedKing]

And anyway, war preparation causes GDP increases, as another person pointed out in remarking that 1941-1965 was a "boom" era, although I'd argue that the GDP growth is purely malinvestment in the case of war preparations.

I'd have to differ on the malinvestment point. Prior to WWII, the United States was an agrarian second-tier power with a few manufacturing hubs, notably Pittsburgh.

The infrastructure improvements, industrial imporvements, standardizations and mass influx of rural population to urban centers were HUGE in making the US come out of World War II as a roaring industrial power (not getting bombed to hell and back certainly helped too).

I'd think that, being in China, you'd see the parallel. Mass influx of rural population to the cities = cheap labor = industrial boom. That influx doesn't happen without jobs to lure them, and those jobs don't arise out of the dust without something to make. GM didn't start employing hundreds of thousands of people because the owners had been cut fat tax breaks, they employed them because they had orders for a shitload of armored vehicles, P-51s, and other military hardware. Orders from the Federal Government.

[Trollheiming]

Note there was also a recession / big spike in unemployment AFTER Reagan massively dropped taxes in 1981 and 1982. And there was also the early 90's recession, after yet another round of tax cuts.

The moral is that you can't take an isolated data point and say it proves a theory, and conveniently ignore all other data points which contradict that theory.

The entire economy throughout the 1970s and early 1980s was jittering in a malaise. To argue that the 1981 tax cuts were responsible for recession afterward, you'd have to find a different reason why there was a recession immediately before in 1980, too. Probably a combination of bad factors, like gas prices and the growing trade deficits that Japan and Germany that had just begun to open up. Incidentally, rising gas prices are not entirely separate from the increased demand in those countries, so you could put all the problems of 1970s and 1980s on an American economy that had yet to adapt to other countries recovered enough from WWII to compete with it. Our labor force was unchallenged for a long time, and grew inefficient and uncompetitive. That's the context.

An incredibly weak argument, again considering everything that was happening in 36. 36 was one of the worst dust bowl years that caused massive economic devastation to agriculture in the us. There was also disturbance to global trade as the powers become more militarized. Etc.

Fair point, but we're talking perfect storms. Naturally, there are multiple downward pressures converging.

[RedKing]

Note there was also a recession / big spike in unemployment AFTER Reagan massively dropped taxes in 1981 and 1982. And there was also the early 90's recession, after yet another round of tax cuts.

The moral is that you can't take an isolated data point and say it proves a theory, and conveniently ignore all other data points which contradict that theory.

The entire economy throughout the 1970s and early 1980s was jittering in a malaise. To argue that the 1981 tax cuts were responsible for recession afterward, you'd have to find a different reason why there was a recession immediately before in 1980, too. Probably a combination of bad factors, like gas prices and the growing trade deficits that Japan and Germany that had just begun to open up. Incidentally, rising gas prices are not entirely separate from the increased demand in those countries, so you could put all the problems of 1970s and 1980s on an American economy that had yet to adapt to other countries recovered enough from WWII to compete with it. Our labor force was unchallenged for a long time, and grew inefficient and uncompetitive. That's the context.

To recap:

Depression *during* a capital-D Depression: FDR WAS A DUMBASS, NO OTHER EXPLANATION NEEDED
Depression during Reagan's term: It's complicated. 

Let's just admit that there are very, very few instances where a single policy or event is responsible for swinging an entire economic cycle, shall we?

[Trollheiming]

I'd have to differ on the malinvestment point. Prior to WWII, the United States was an agrarian second-tier power with a few manufacturing hubs, notably Pittsburgh.

Detroit was already big, too, making 2 million cars a year before the war, and was geared to produce useful things to ordinary people. Tanks are cool, but ordinary people don't want them. I'm not sure how much of the Sherman assembly line was able to be repurposed to make useful products after the war. There's a certain amount of broken window fallacy going into an assumption that the war years were a boom time. There were rations for everything.

Let's just admit that there are very, very few instances where a single policy or event is responsible for swinging an entire economic cycle, shall we?

Lol. Fine, you got me.

[Jervill]

Local politics follow:

I am quite pleased that many of the anti-public transportation politicians lost their re-election bids, which will mean having a majority that will most likely be more friendly to rail and other public works proposals.  Specifically expanding the Light-Rail system towards the Southwest suburbs.

I would prefer interstate high speed rail, but that would require federal funding, and it would have to go through Wisconsin which is controlled by Republicans who will fight tooth and nail to stop expansion/upgrading of anything with "rail" in it.