Can someone please show me an example of when un-regulated financial markets actually worked?

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.

When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.

When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.

scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

Have you looked at the economy under 'too much'? Many economists believe FDR dragged the GD on years beyond it's natural duration due to the amount of regulation and nationalization. So it's easy for you to sit there, isolate a moment in time, and use it to make a huge, generalized case against free markets.

And i posted a link to canada, that socialist country you free marketers love to deride. They're ranked as having the soundest banking system by the world economic forum (US was ranked 40th) and have shielded themselves much better against the subprime mess than we have. Obama praised their banking system, which probably means we'll never adopt any of their policies because you free market fundamentalists will scream 'socialism' and obstruct any chance of change.

There you go, working in absolutes so you can pigeon hole everyone to make an argument .

The informed are wary of regulation for a reason, because we've learned from it:

UCLA Economists Determine FDR Prolonged GD by 7 Years
Cliffs notes for the above, interpreted by businessandmedia.org

There's oodles more out there on the subject, but my point is that there's reason to not dive in head first. Several of us have already told you that we're not opposed to regulation, we just want to be careful with it and not overstep bounds. I know that makes it really hard for you to level charges of 'obstructionism' and accuse us of being fundamentalists, so it's much easier for you to lump us all into one 'extreme' category.

Like I said, quit thinking in such absolutes. It's handicapping you. Teclis and others have made great points, and not at the exclusion of regulation. Unfortunately, those points appear to be lost on you .

That article is hilarioius, especially considering between 1933 and 1940, we saw some of the highest sustained growth rates in GDP in this country:

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html

Considering economists are so bad at even predicting current day recessions, i really don't put much grain of salt into a study that doesn't even get it's facts right.

Respond to me and i'll show you WHY the study is terrible (the numbers are beyond unrealistic)

LMFAO

There are dozens of studies, books, and articles written on the subject, but since materials composed by highly regarded economists aren't good enough for you - your own personal feelings on the matter are certainly more reliable - then I think you and I are through. Those stupid Nobel Laureats... you should edumacate them on Phokinomiks and set the record straight! On a totally unrelated note, I wonder what MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING DOES TO GDP?! :laugh:

They don't call you the new dmcowen for nothing, do they :laugh: .

These are the same economists who scratch their head when they believe trickle down economics benefits everyone, yet recent explosion in economic growth has led to stagnant middle class wages but an explosion in the top percentile of wages. These are the same economists who scratch their head when deregulation leads us to economic disaster in the financial markets (only 1 or 2 economists in the country warned us about the subprime lending). These are the same economists who can't predict recessions acurately.

But let me post it for you again:


The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement.

Here's the difference between you and i. You dig up articles on the 'net without even looking at what they're saying and present it as some sort of 'proof' of your position, i actually go behind the numbers and make you look stupid (and believe me, you are incredibly stupid).

 

[Genx87]

You know who advocates socialism? Socialists. You know who Advocates free market fundamentalism? Republicans. Now guess where democrats and european social democrats are in that spectrum.

I am asking where you sit since the world is so black and white to you. With this response you feel everybody else is fit to have a black and white label put on them but when it comes to you, a shade of grey is prefered. Unsurprising. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Here's the difference between you and i. You dig up articles on the 'net without even looking at what they're saying and present it as some sort of 'proof' of your position, i actually go behind the numbers and make you look stupid (and believe me, you are incredibly stupid).

This is going to be fun. I believe jbourne is an economist.

Sits back with popcorn and a coke.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here's the difference between you and i. You dig up articles on the 'net without even looking at what they're saying and present it as some sort of 'proof' of your position, i actually go behind the numbers and make you look stupid (and believe me, you are incredibly stupid).

This is going to be fun. I believe jbourne is an economist.

Sits back with popcorn and a coke.

That's great, i have some articles from economists that contradict the UCLA claim. Again, i'll wait till he responds.

Also, i'd like you or him to explain how an additional 10% 4 year growth rate over the greatest 10% 4 year growth rate in the history of the US is anything but unrealistic.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here's the difference between you and i. You dig up articles on the 'net without even looking at what they're saying and present it as some sort of 'proof' of your position, i actually go behind the numbers and make you look stupid (and believe me, you are incredibly stupid).

This is going to be fun. I believe jbourne is an economist.

Sits back with popcorn and a coke.

That's great, i have some articles from economists that contradict the UCLA claim. Again, i'll wait till he responds.

Also, i'd like you or him to explain how an additional 10% 4 year growth rate over the greatest 10% 4 year growth rate in the history of the US is anything but unrealistic.

That is the spirit, head long into the wall. Make sure to accelerate right before impact.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here's the difference between you and i. You dig up articles on the 'net without even looking at what they're saying and present it as some sort of 'proof' of your position, i actually go behind the numbers and make you look stupid (and believe me, you are incredibly stupid).

This is going to be fun. I believe jbourne is an economist.

Sits back with popcorn and a coke.

That's great, i have some articles from economists that contradict the UCLA claim. Again, i'll wait till he responds.

Also, i'd like you or him to explain how an additional 10% 4 year growth rate over the greatest 10% 4 year growth rate in the history of the US is anything but unrealistic.

That is the spirit, head long into the wall. Make sure to accelerate right before impact.

"Facts and Logic are like kryptonite to a conservative"

keep spouting insults, i'll present facts, figures and logic, gg owned.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah I see that. Shades of grey for you baby!

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
You know who Advocates free market fundamentalism? Republicans.

MISERABLE FAIL

:laugh:

Originally posted by: Phokus
I don't trust studies

LOL you have proven absolutely squat. I could fill up a page with non-partison expertise on the matter, and an additional six pages with studies by members of Mises and Cato (but since they're biased, I didn't even dream of supplying their links). All you have to show for your argument is disbelief.

Seriously guy, you could have avoided all of this by just acknowledging that you can't treat every single person who opposes carte blanche regulation as a free market fundamentalist republican neocon religious fruitcake. I know it's easier for you to make your argument that way, but it doesn't mean everyone else is going to let you get away with it.

Get a grip :laugh:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
You know who Advocates free market fundamentalism? Republicans.

MISERABLE FAIL

:laugh:

Originally posted by: Phokus
I don't trust studies

LOL you have proven absolutely squat. I could fill up a page with non-partison expertise on the matter, and an additional six pages with studies by members of Mises and Cato (but since they're biased, I didn't even dream of supplying their links). All you have to show for your argument is disbelief.

Seriously guy, you could have avoided all of this by just acknowledging that you can't treat every single person who opposes carte blanche regulation as a free market fundamentalist republican neocon religious fruitcake. I know it's easier for you to make your argument that way, but it doesn't mean everyone else is going to let you get away with it.

Get a grip :laugh:

You posted a link, i posted actual numbers which show how unrealistic the study was.

I'm going to keep posting this, just to show how outclassed you are because you can't respond:

The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement.


You = outclassed. Again, GG, owned.

And Cato and Mises? hahahaha, yeah, i'm going to believe a bunch of free market fundies who have a predisposition to ignore any facts that contradict their ideology.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here's the difference between you and i. You dig up articles on the 'net without even looking at what they're saying and present it as some sort of 'proof' of your position, i actually go behind the numbers and make you look stupid (and believe me, you are incredibly stupid).

This is going to be fun. I believe jbourne is an economist.

Sits back with popcorn and a coke.

Working on my doctorate, actually .

But when you substantiate your claims with credible studies by credible economists only to have them totally dismissed on the basis of disbelief, you know you're not working with a rational person. The study I posted is just one of MANY, and if I was willing to introduce Libertarian sources, we're talking COUNTLESS materials that are in agreement on the subject.

This is actually why I typically avoid getting this deep in discussion at ATPN. If you don't back your opinions up, you're accused of being misinformed. When you actually take the time and go through the trouble to help someone understand, you're accused of being misinformed regardless.

Really, why bother? Narrow minded people who are as committed to being as narrow minded as Phokus is cannot be convinced one way or the other. They MUST deal in black and white because their weak minds cannot rationalize across a spectrum of ideas. Their ideas are black and white, so they can't process the possibility that perhaps yours and mine are dynamic. Dynamic thinking does not exist in his world.

For fun

It's a Libertarian source. Deal with it, Phokus

Originally posted by: Phokus
gg owned.

LOL - you posted this? TWICE? Are you 4?

Chump, just because I'm posting links and you're sporting a cut and paste job means shit. I don't need to post numbers. There's plenty of material that has everything neatly organized, outlined, and explained... that is if you're capable of digesting it.

You keep posting your treasured little paragraph :laugh: .

 

[Genx87]

And Cato and Mises? hahahaha, yeah, i'm going to believe a bunch of free market fundies who have a predisposition to ignore any facts that contradict their ideology.

This response is so deliciously perfect from you. I wouldnt expect you to read from any sources not lockstep with your personal ideology. Because it may make you think outside your small defined world of black and white, right and wrong, left and right!

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
yeah, i'm going to believe a bunch of free market fundies who have a predisposition to ignore any facts that contradict their ideology.

And now you understand why we cannot take you seriously, either

You're the only one here with an immovable, irrational ideology. It's either black or it's white.

Free your mind son, life will be easier. It's okay to admit - even if only to yourself - that you're being too stubborn and thus restricting the flow of information to your mind.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here's the difference between you and i. You dig up articles on the 'net without even looking at what they're saying and present it as some sort of 'proof' of your position, i actually go behind the numbers and make you look stupid (and believe me, you are incredibly stupid).

This is going to be fun. I believe jbourne is an economist.

Sits back with popcorn and a coke.

Working on my doctorate, actually .

But when you substantiate your claims with credible studies by credible economists only to have them totally dismissed on the basis of disbelief, you know you're not working with a rational person. The study I posted is just one of MANY, and if I was willing to introduce Libertarian sources, we're talking COUNTLESS materials that are in agreement on the subject.

This is actually why I typically avoid getting this deep in discussion at ATPN. If you don't back your opinions up, you're accused of being misinformed. When you actually take the time and go through the trouble to help someone understand, you're accused of being misinformed regardless.

Really, why bother? Narrow minded people who are as committed to being as narrow minded as Phokus is cannot be convinced one way or the other. They MUST deal in black and white because their weak minds cannot rationalize across a spectrum of ideas. Their ideas are black and white, so they can't process the possibility that perhaps yours and mine are dynamic. Dynamic thinking does not exist in his world.

For fun

It's a Libertarian source. Deal with it, Phokus

Originally posted by: Phokus
gg owned.

LOL - you posted this? TWICE? Are you 4?

Chump, just because I'm posting links and you're sporting a cut and paste job means shit. I don't need to post numbers. There's plenty of material that has everything neatly organized, outlined, and explained... that is if you're capable of digesting it.

You keep posting your treasured little paragraph :laugh: .

Yes, i'm going to believe a HISTORIAN who works for a free market fundamentalist think tank. It's not even a study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Powell_(historian)

The reason you avoid deep discussion at ATPN is because you can't handle facts/figures/logic and your intellectual laziness (as evidenced above) makes you look foolish:

The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement.

 

[Genx87]

Working on my doctorate, actually .

But when you substantiate your claims with credible studies by credible economists only to have them totally dismissed on the basis of disbelief, you know you're not working with a rational person. The study I posted is just one of MANY, and if I was willing to introduce Libertarian sources, we're talking COUNTLESS materials that are in agreement on the subject.

This is actually why I typically avoid getting this deep in discussion at ATPN. If you don't back your opinions up, you're accused of being misinformed. When you actually take the time and go through the trouble to help someone understand, you're accused of being misinformed regardless.

Really, why bother? Narrow minded people who are as committed to being as narrow minded as Phokus is cannot be convinced one way or the other. They MUST deal in black and white because their weak minds cannot rationalize across a spectrum of ideas. Their ideas are black and white, so they can't process the possibility that perhaps yours and mine are dynamic. Dynamic thinking does not exist in his world.

For fun

It's a Libertarian source. Deal with it, Phokus

Congrats on the doctorate.

I think the funniest response in this whole thread is when he basically stomped his feet, plugged his ears and stuck his head in the sand when he said he wont consider any studies by people he doesnt agree with, confirming the simple mind black and white approach he takes.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

And Cato and Mises? hahahaha, yeah, i'm going to believe a bunch of free market fundies who have a predisposition to ignore any facts that contradict their ideology.

This response is so deliciously perfect from you. I wouldnt expect you to read from any sources not lockstep with your personal ideology. Because it may make you think outside your small defined world of black and white, right and wrong, left and right!

Me taking Cato and Mises seriously, would be like taking a communist/socialist think tank seriously.

Also, economists with an ideological bent are the LEAST trustworthy sources.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Working on my doctorate, actually .

But when you substantiate your claims with credible studies by credible economists only to have them totally dismissed on the basis of disbelief, you know you're not working with a rational person. The study I posted is just one of MANY, and if I was willing to introduce Libertarian sources, we're talking COUNTLESS materials that are in agreement on the subject.

This is actually why I typically avoid getting this deep in discussion at ATPN. If you don't back your opinions up, you're accused of being misinformed. When you actually take the time and go through the trouble to help someone understand, you're accused of being misinformed regardless.

Really, why bother? Narrow minded people who are as committed to being as narrow minded as Phokus is cannot be convinced one way or the other. They MUST deal in black and white because their weak minds cannot rationalize across a spectrum of ideas. Their ideas are black and white, so they can't process the possibility that perhaps yours and mine are dynamic. Dynamic thinking does not exist in his world.

For fun

It's a Libertarian source. Deal with it, Phokus

Congrats on the doctorate.

I think the funniest response in this whole thread is when he basically stomped his feet, plugged his ears and stuck his head in the sand when he said he wont consider any studies by people he doesnt agree with, confirming the simple mind black and white approach he takes.

Considering how jbourne can't even handle numbers, they must be handing economics doctorates like candy.

Funny thing is, I was taking a course when working at IBM and the visiting finance professor from BYU (who HAS his PhD in economics and is also a chartered CFA) told us he believed FDR's public works program helped get us out of the recession.

But then again, jbourne's ucla article is the end all be all authority on the great depression and no other economists disagree :roll:

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yes, i'm going to believe a HISTORIAN who works for a free market fundamentalist think tank. It's not even a study.

What choice did I have? You already said you didn't trust economists :laugh: . I'm also a mathematician... will you believe me if I tell you 2+2=4, or do I need to find an anthropologist to convince you?

Originally posted by: Phokus
The reason you avoid deep discussion at ATPN is because you can't handle facts/figures/logic and your intellectual laziness (as evidenced above) makes you look foolish:

This is hysterical. My entire EXISTENCE is facts, figures, and logic (software development, economics, mathematics); I just don't bring them here because, whenever someone does, people instead try to rip into the credibility of the sources instead. Case in point, YOU. I gave you well-respected evidence substantiating my point. Your response? You don't trust economists. Then you dig up some anecdotal nothingness to try to derail the study on the basis that you don't like their GDP calcs. This coming from a guy who, as evidenced by your other idealistic ramblings, has no idea what role government spending plays in GDP.

I teach a principles class a few times a year when I'm not teaching econometrics... I'll let you audit it for free . Careful though, I might brainwash you!!!

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the funniest response in this whole thread is when he basically stomped his feet, plugged his ears and stuck his head in the sand when he said he wont consider any studies by people he doesnt agree with, confirming the simple mind black and white approach he takes.

Yep. "I don't trust economists!" Okay... here's a historian... "He's historian, not an economist!"



WTF? Should I dig up a damn basket weaver for these idiots?!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

And Cato and Mises? hahahaha, yeah, i'm going to believe a bunch of free market fundies who have a predisposition to ignore any facts that contradict their ideology.

This response is so deliciously perfect from you. I wouldnt expect you to read from any sources not lockstep with your personal ideology. Because it may make you think outside your small defined world of black and white, right and wrong, left and right!

Me taking Cato and Mises seriously, would be like taking a communist/socialist think tank seriously.

Also, economists with an ideological bent are the LEAST trustworthy sources.

Everybody has a bias. You think the Keynesians who wrote a study you may have read are going to trash their system? Just because a source is bias doesnt mean their information is wrong. One can learn a lot about themselves by reading\listening to people they dont agree with. Open up your world view a little.

Funny thing is, I was taking a course when working at IBM and the visiting finance professor from BYU (who HAS his PhD in economics and is also a chartered CFA) told us he believed FDR's public works program helped get us out of the recession.

But then again, jbourne's ucla article is the end all be all authority on the great depression and no other economists disagree

There you go with that simple minded black and white approach again. I am pretty sure jbourne did not say the UCLA approach was the end all be all for studies on the GD did he?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Considering how jbourne can't even handle numbers, they must be handing economics doctorates like candy.

B.S., Computer Science
B.A., Mathematics
B.A., Economics

Yeah, I can't handle numbers .

Originally posted by: Phokus
Funny thing is, I was taking a course when working at IBM and the visiting finance professor from BYU (who HAS his PhD in economics and is also a chartered CFA) told us he believed FDR's public works program helped get us out of the recession.

But then again, jbourne's ucla article is the end all be all authority on the great depression and no other economists disagree :roll:

So the countless articles out there suggesting FDR prolonged the GD all take a backseat to ONE guy you met? And YOU accuse ME of using one source as an end-all be-all? Are you joking? Did you even read up on Cole at all, or did you just assume - because you didn't like what you were hearing - that he was some partisan hack? The references to Mises and CATO came long after that when, tongue-in-cheek, I was making fun of your partisan hackery.

You, child, are a riot

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yes, i'm going to believe a HISTORIAN who works for a free market fundamentalist think tank. It's not even a study.

Originally posted by: Phokus
The reason you avoid deep discussion at ATPN is because you can't handle facts/figures/logic and your intellectual laziness (as evidenced above) makes you look foolish:

Then you dig up some anecdotal nothingness to try to derail the study on the basis that you don't like their GDP calcs. This coming from a guy who, as evidenced by your other idealistic ramblings, has no idea what role government spending plays in GDP.

I teach a principles class a few times a year when I'm not teaching econometrics... I'll let you audit it for free . Careful though, I might brainwash you!!!

What choice did I have? You already said you didn't trust economists :laugh: . I'm also a mathematician... will you believe me if I tell you 2+2=4, or do I need to find an anthropologist to convince you?

I don't trust economists to some extent due to their track record. The fact that only a couple of economists in this country was able to warn us about the subprime mess is a HUGE blemish on your profession. I trust economists with an ideological bent EVEN LESS. You presented a policy paper from a HISTORIAN with an ideological bent as another source.

This is hysterical. My entire EXISTENCE is facts, figures, and logic (software development, economics, mathematics);

so how come this owned you so hard you couldn't even respond to it?

"The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement."

I just don't bring them here because, whenever someone does, people instead try to rip into the credibility of the sources instead. Case in point, YOU. I gave you well-respected evidence substantiating my point. Your response? You don't trust economists.

Actually, my response to your ucla paper was (for the millionth time), this:

"The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement."

And your response was crickets.

This is why you = owned

And to further destroy your credibility

http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? . . . these policies are expansionary when certain "emergency" conditions apply. These emergency conditions - zero interest rates and deflation - were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary . . .

This conclusion is contrary to the one reached by a large previous literature, . . . that argues that the New Deal was contractionary. The main reason for this divergence is that the current model incorporates nominal frictions so that inflation expectations play a central role in the analysis. The New Deal has a strong effect on inflation expectations in the model, changing excessive deflation to modest inflation, thereby lowering real interest rates and stimulating spending.

Owned.

 

[JohnnyGage]

This is hysterical-- Mcow... er Phokus getting pwnd over and over again.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
This is hysterical-- Mcow... er Phokus getting pwnd over and over again.

Love your sig dude.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
This is hysterical-- Mcow... er Phokus getting pwnd over and over again.

No, it's hysterical that jbourne can't respond to this:

"The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement."

GG owned.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
Considering how jbourne can't even handle numbers, they must be handing economics doctorates like candy.

B.S., Computer Science
B.A., Mathematics
B.A., Economics

Yeah, I can't handle numbers .

Originally posted by: Phokus
Funny thing is, I was taking a course when working at IBM and the visiting finance professor from BYU (who HAS his PhD in economics and is also a chartered CFA) told us he believed FDR's public works program helped get us out of the recession.

But then again, jbourne's ucla article is the end all be all authority on the great depression and no other economists disagree :roll:

So the countless articles out there suggesting FDR prolonged the GD all take a backseat to ONE guy you met? And YOU accuse ME of using one source as an end-all be-all? Are you joking? Did you even read up on Cole at all, or did you just assume - because you didn't like what you were hearing - that he was some partisan hack? The references to Mises and CATO came long after that when, tongue-in-cheek, I was making fun of your partisan hackery.

You, child, are a riot

Here, have another:

http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? . . . these policies are expansionary when certain "emergency" conditions apply. These emergency conditions - zero interest rates and deflation - were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary . . .

This conclusion is contrary to the one reached by a large previous literature, . . . that argues that the New Deal was contractionary. The main reason for this divergence is that the current model incorporates nominal frictions so that inflation expectations play a central role in the analysis. The New Deal has a strong effect on inflation expectations in the model, changing excessive deflation to modest inflation, thereby lowering real interest rates and stimulating spending.

And despite your 'qualifications', you're befuddled by this?

"The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement."

Owned.


edit: and the 'one guy i met' wasn't to counter your stupid cato article, it was to counter this 'jbourne is getting his doctorate, zomg appeal to authority!!!!!oneoneone' bs that's getting spouted about by referencing a guy who actually HAS his doctorate and many years of experience in his field.