Jump to content

Elections, Elections, Elections


BansheeOne

Recommended Posts

Are people in the UK really talking about Scottish independence??

Yes. A small but very vociferous minority in Scotland are making a lot of noise to the general indifference of the majority, and some rabble rousers in the London press are happily shit stirring in response, again to general disinterest.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ehhh...the Scottish Assembly has a Scottish National Party majority. Holyrood is a hovel and the royals avoid it like the plague.

Indeed, but the SNP majority does not signal a general support for the SNP's independence agenda or for the SNP per se. It's the result of a protest vote aimed at punishing Labour, and last week's local council elections suggest that the urge to punish has ebbed away and the voters are returning to their normal, arguably more sensible, default positions.

 

Ref this:

Best to hope there is no afterlife. Asians venerate their ancestors for making things better for them. Westerners are damned lucky if they are not cursed to burn for eternity by future generations.

 

Yes, I can qute see the Vietnamese boat people venerating their ancestors for making things better for them, along with the victims of Mao's Great Leaps Forward and the folk caught up in Pol Pot's Year Zero improvement experiment... :rolleyes:

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehhh...the Scottish Assembly has a Scottish National Party majority. Holyrood is a hovel and the royals avoid it like the plague.

 

Though they didnt do quite so well as they were projected in the recent council elections, so hopefully its an indication their popularity is begining to stall.

 

Yes Mike, its on the Agenda, and has been for some time. Though until the SNP actually gets an referendum its not likely to progress much further. The problem is the glue that tied Scotland to the rest of the UK was economic progress (that ultimately is the only reason they joined. Look up the act of union and the Scottish colony in Panama and you will see what I mean) Start turning that into reverse and a lot of the funding for various things starts getting turned off, its just going to increase the argument for independence. They wont be losing anything, and get a larger share of remaining oil and gas stocks from teh north sea. Or so they assume.

 

Im surprised its not been discussed on Tanknet before actually. Its been an issue kicked around ever since the Scottish parliament got set up during Tony Blairs reign. Its not helped by the current PMs only solid argument for remaining in the Union is what we did during WW2 together. He may be right, but not that an impressive argument when you examine it. If it was, we would have held onto the Empire as well.

Ref the last para, no mate, there is a great deal more to it than that, which is becoming more apparent as folk are starting to look past Jabba & Co's shortbread tin nonsense at the practicalities of what they are selling. Which isn't very impressive once you brush away the rhetoric & ranting.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill...as a rule of thumb, the boat people left VN because they saw no future for them in the country. Almost all who survived the trips(the majority) wound up in better lives whether in Oz, Norway or any number of final destinations. I personally know of two brothers who were children at the time of exodus who wound up in a transit camp in Malaysia. They ended up in Chicago where their family opened a shop and where now they run a very successful distribution business. I think the ancestors have no issues.

 

The Great Leap Forward and Year Zero were gross deviations based on weak Western thinking. The GLF and Cultural Revolution mistakes have been rectified as has Year Zero. Confucian ideals do not prevent evil, bad judgement and idiocy. They simply seek to limit the effects over the long time and have proven remarkably successful over the last 2000 years.

 

Heck, the PRC even returned the family home in Teochew City that was seized during the Cultural Revolution back to us a few years ago, which is now a bit of a conundrum since the family has no direct descendants there to benefit or rebuild the place after 50 years of neglect. Still, we will probably spend money on fixing it up so that future generations can go and visit the old country and see the house that great, great grandad built.

Edited by Simon Tan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill...as a rule of thumb, the boat people left VN because they saw no future for them in the country. Almost all who survived the trips(the majority) wound up in better lives whether in Oz, Norway or any number of final destinations. I personally know of two brothers who were children at the time of exodus who wound up in a transit camp in Malaysia. They ended up in Chicago where their family opened a shop and where now they run a very successful distribution business. I think the ancestors have no issues.

 

The Great Leap Forward and Year Zero were gross deviations based on weak Western thinking. The GLF and Cultural Revolution mistakes have been rectified as has Year Zero. Confucian ideals do not prevent evil, bad judgement and idiocy. They simply seek to limit the effects over the long time and have proven remarkably successful over the last 2000 years.

 

Heck, the PRC even returned the family home in Teochew City that was seized during the Cultural Revolution back to us a few years ago, which is now a bit of a conundrum since the family has no direct descendants there to benefit or rebuild the place after 50 years of neglect. Still, we will probably spend money on fixing it up so that future generations can go and visit the old country and see the house that great, great grandad built.

 

It's a trick to bring you back and have you sent to a re-education camp. afterwards you will come back muttering "Norinco good", "LWRC evil Western crap" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Future generation's money was borrowed" to fight unfunded wars, cover budgets no longer funded because of tax cuts, 2001-2008. No problems were voiced by our apostols of the RW at the time. The national debt was increased for a record amount, whether the deficits showed it or not: $5.9 to 10.6T, 89%. The supplementals are not counted in the annual deficit, for one thing.

 

You're wrong.

 

You believe too much Dem propaganda or spout it whether you believe or not .

 

During that era:

* Paul O'Neil fired from Sec of Treasury over that issue.

* Judd Gregg and John McCain were labelled RHINOs for being againist the Bush spending machine.

* Both Burton Barr and Dick Armey lost their positions in the House being againist the Bush spending machine.

* Don't forget Ron Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* Jeff Flake of Az. was punished for being " Anti-PORK " and other expensive Bush spending actions and lost his comittee assignments.

 

Along with my pissin' n' moaning on this forum as did Adam Machell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* Judd Gregg and John McCain were labelled RHINOs for being againist the Bush spending machine.

I don't recall either one of them being labelled as RINOs for being against the Bush spending machine. I remember them being for the spending and for greater taxation. I don't ever recall McCain standing up to be counted against NCLB, and Medicaid part D, the WOT, and the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. On the contrary, at least for the last three, McCain was an ardent supporter. However, I could be wrong, I just don't recall McCain stating that he would only support the armed conflicts with huge tax increases, drastic spending cuts, and the selling of war bonds.

 

McCain was labeled a RINO for many reasons, none of which were because he was against increased government spending. He then cemented his tag when, as the presidential challenger, he stated that all home mortgages should be paid off by the government. Really, John? And who was going to pay for that spending extravaganza?

Edited by DKTanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

* Judd Gregg and John McCain were labelled RHINOs for being againist the Bush spending machine.

I don't recall either one of them being labelled as RINOs for being against the Bush spending machine. I remember them being for the spending and for greater taxation. I don't ever recall McCain standing up to be counted against NCLB, and Medicaid part D, the WOT, and the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. On the contrary, at least for the last three, McCain was an ardent supporter. However, I could be wrong, I just don't recall McCain stating that he would only support the armed conflicts with huge tax increases, drastic spending cuts, and the selling of war bonds.

 

McCain was labeled a RINO for many reasons, none of which were because he was against increased government spending. He then cemented his tag when, as the presidential challenger, he stated that all home mortgages should be paid off by the government. Really, John? And who was going to pay for that spending extravaganza?

 

McCain questioned why tax cuts during war.

McCain wanted to tax so called Cadilac Health Ins. plans to cover Med-D costs and raise revenues.

McCain wanted to do some cutting of charity tax write-offs.

McCain was againist PORK before it was GOP fashionable to be so.

 

He wasn't always againist increased spending but he was for covering those with revenues.

 

He was a complete flop in how to deal with the 2008 financial meltdown and that doomed him. Actually it was over his head and in hind sight everybody elses and still is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Future generation's money was borrowed" to fight unfunded wars, cover budgets no longer funded because of tax cuts, 2001-2008. No problems were voiced by our apostols of the RW at the time. The national debt was increased for a record amount, whether the deficits showed it or not: $5.9 to 10.6T, 89%. The supplementals are not counted in the annual deficit, for one thing.

 

You're wrong.

 

You believe too much Dem propaganda or spout it whether you believe or not .

 

During that era:

* Paul O'Neil fired from Sec of Treasury over that issue.

* Judd Gregg and John McCain were labelled RHINOs for being againist the Bush spending machine.

* Both Burton Barr and Dick Armey lost their positions in the House being againist the Bush spending machine.

* Don't forget Ron Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* Jeff Flake of Az. was punished for being " Anti-PORK " and other expensive Bush spending actions and lost his comittee assignments.

 

Along with my pissin' n' moaning on this forum as did Adam Machell.

 

Wow, OT, if we count you and Adam, that means ten exceptions to the facts. Does not invalidate what I stated.

 

You and I are old enough to have been dissuaded of any notion that any ideology has all the answers. Therefore please spare me the Dem propaganda malarkey. I have lived through this stuff, do not need to visit anybody's claptrap repository. We both remember that it was considered treason to criticize Dubya and his regime 'when we had troops engaged with the enemy.'

 

Quite a few people lost jobs for lack of loyalty to the regime. Many were fine people, such as Mr. O'Neil and LtG Wallace. No news there either.

 

The errors of the Bush II regime are legion already, but memory fades, apparently including the recessions at the beginning and end of the period. I do remember Bush being the first in my memory to use, in 2001, the unfortunate phrase 'jobs created or saved' when defending his tax cuts in the face of the downturn. He was saved, not by some trickle down econ nonsense, but rather 9-11 and the massive reaction/overreaction that ensued. How quickly we forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Future generation's money was borrowed" to fight unfunded wars, cover budgets no longer funded because of tax cuts, 2001-2008. No problems were voiced by our apostols of the RW at the time. The national debt was increased for a record amount, whether the deficits showed it or not: $5.9 to 10.6T, 89%. The supplementals are not counted in the annual deficit, for one thing.

 

You're wrong.

 

You believe too much Dem propaganda or spout it whether you believe or not .

 

During that era:

* Paul O'Neil fired from Sec of Treasury over that issue.

* Judd Gregg and John McCain were labelled RHINOs for being againist the Bush spending machine.

* Both Burton Barr and Dick Armey lost their positions in the House being againist the Bush spending machine.

* Don't forget Ron Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* Jeff Flake of Az. was punished for being " Anti-PORK " and other expensive Bush spending actions and lost his comittee assignments.

 

Along with my pissin' n' moaning on this forum as did Adam Machell.

 

Wow, OT, if we count you and Adam, that means ten exceptions to the facts. Does not invalidate what I stated.

 

You and I are old enough to have been dissuaded of any notion that any ideology has all the answers. Therefore please spare me the Dem propaganda malarkey. I have lived through this stuff, do not need to visit anybody's claptrap repository. We both remember that it was considered treason to criticize Dubya and his regime 'when we had troops engaged with the enemy.'

 

Quite a few people lost jobs for lack of loyalty to the regime. Many were fine people, such as Mr. O'Neil and LtG Wallace. No news there either.

 

The errors of the Bush II regime are legion already, but memory fades, apparently including the recessions at the beginning and end of the period. I do remember Bush being the first in my memory to use, in 2001, the unfortunate phrase 'jobs created or saved' when defending his tax cuts in the face of the downturn. He was saved, not by some trickle down econ nonsense, but rather 9-11 and the massive reaction/overreaction that ensued. How quickly we forget.

 

My memory is good enough to recognize the early ( pre-9-11 ) economic slowdown under Bush started in April 2000 ( 9 months before Bush 43 era) with the NASDQ meltdown. The meltdown was warned of by Allen Greenspan's " Irrational exerburance " a couple of years prior.

 

We can rehash Phil Gramm , Dodd , Rubin , repeal of Glass-Steagal and the overkill push to make everyone a home owner.

We can claim guilt of Clinton and Bush.

 

As to " Trickle down " I ask you what is Obama doing but " Trickle down " ? Only it's by gov't controlled money flows as opposed to private money flows.

SOLYNDRA , Fister , First Solar , GM and so on.Obama/Dem style " Trickle Down ".

 

 

The GSA convention is an example of Dem. " Trickle down " $130,000 of expenses to scout out where to hold a meeting. Air fares , hotels ,car rentals , meals etc. all " Trickling down " into the private sector.

 

Save the " Trickle down " rants for Dem propaganda blogs.

 

IMHO both parties are and were guilty as they still are this very day.

 

My current assesment is based on neither party grasping Simpson-Bowles by the horns and running with it.

 

Your turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain questioned why tax cuts during war.

McCain wanted to tax so called Cadilac Health Ins. plans to cover Med-D costs and raise revenues.

McCain wanted to do some cutting of charity tax write-offs.

McCain was againist PORK before it was GOP fashionable to be so.

 

He wasn't always againist increased spending but he was for covering those with revenues.

 

He was a complete flop in how to deal with the 2008 financial meltdown and that doomed him. Actually it was over his head and in hind sight everybody elses and still is.

There were two rounds of tax cuts, the first in 2001 passed and was signed into law June of 2001. I don't recall if McCain was against this round of tax cuts, but either way, there was no war. The second round was in 2003 and was signed into law May of 2003. This is likely the round to which you refer. I don't recall, was McCain stating that the war would be paid for utterly and completely if there were no additional tax cuts and if the previous tax cuts were recsinded? No, I don't think so. McCain was against tax cuts because McCain is for greater taxation and will use whatever rationalization is available.

 

Your second point exemplifies this, McCain has no problem with ever greater government spending and greater taxation and would often give vocal support to the tax and spend liberals. McCain was against pork, McCain never signed on to pork spending for AZ? Or is he one that talked about cutting pork while taking a slice for himself? See, cutting pork isn't cutting spending, that money will be spent one way or the other, just ask McCain. Reducing the amount of money spent is a spending cut, not merely changing how it is spent.

 

McCain was labeled as a RINO because of two related reasons. He couldn't help himself taking jabs at the "unenlightened" elements of the right. He stood shoulder to shoulder with the Dems on many issues, and quite frankly spoke as if he would have been more comfortable joining Jeffords and switching parties. And we haven't even begun to talk about how McCain worked with Feingold to emasculate the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Barack Obama insists that he didn’t announce his support for gay marriage out of political considerations. He’s right. He did it out of self-regard.

How it must have eaten away at him to be the first African-American president, yet not associate himself with what has been deemed the foremost civil-rights issue of the age. To be a progressive in favor of all things “forward,” but retrograde on marriage. To know that his stance was a transparent charade and see it treated as such by the lefty opinion makers he respects most. To watch his sloppy, unserious second-in-command get all the credit for moral courage by forthrightly endorsing gay marriage on Meet the Press while he clung to his artful dodge.

 

As an act of personal catharsis, the president’s statement of support was in an appropriately first-person key: I, me, and my. He had favored gay marriage back in 1996 when it was out on the fringe. He was one of the few people on the planet who flipped into opposition as gay marriage became more mainstream. For a while he invoked his faith in justifying his opposition, then he said he was “evolving,” which everyone understood to mean he would embrace gay marriage as soon as he wasn’t running for reelection anymore. The Obama team likes to say Mitt Romney’s flip-flops show he lacks a core. Obama’s long spell of deception on gay marriage shows he has a core, but one that he has devoted much of his national political career to obscuring.

 

 

The president’s willingness finally to say what he believes increased the sense among gay-marriage supporters that final victory is inevitable. History with a capital “H” is on their side. The 21st century itself is practically synonymous with gay marriage. Although this smug confidence will envelop President Obama as he campaigns in such lucrative precincts as George Clooney’s living room, it badly overstates gay marriage’s prospects.

History is littered with the wreckage of causes pronounced inevitable by all right-thinking people. The failed Equal Rights Amendment looked inevitable when it passed Congress in 1972 and immediately 30 states ratified it. Opposition to abortion that was supposed to inevitably wither away is as robust as ever. The forces favoring gun control seemed unstoppably on the march when Congress passed the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban in the 1990s, but there are more protections for gun rights now than two decades ago.

 

Gay marriage’s inevitability hasn’t been evident to the voters in 31 states who have written into their constitutions that marriage is between a man and a woman. The latest is North Carolina, where 61 percent of voters embraced the traditional definition of marriage in a referendum. North Carolina isn’t Mississippi. President Obama won North Carolina in 2008, and Democrats are holding their convention there. Nation-wide, no referendum simply upholding traditional marriage has ever lost, and even in Maine, voters in 2009 reversed a gay-marriage law passed by the legislature.

 

These state constitutional provisions constitute irreducible facts on the ground. Reversing them by democratic means will be the work of a generation. For the foreseeable future, the country will be largely traditional on marriage, with enclaves of same-sex unions as boutique blue-state institutions lacking full legitimacy. Rather than waiting for the tide of history to do its inexorable work, advocates of gay marriage really want the Supreme Court to impose their new definition of marriage. Inevitability’s full name is Anthony McLeod Kennedy, the swing-vote justice who is perfectly capable of remaking marriage by judicial fiat.

There’s no doubt that supporters of gay marriage have made progress, but they shouldn’t congratulate themselves yet. Their cause is still subject to events, such as President Obama’s fate this fall. If the president’s newly frank support for gay marriage costs him crucial swing states, his coming-out party will be seen — inevitably — as more a setback to the cause than a watershed.

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299663/gay-marriage-not-inevitable-rich-lowry

 

I also would remind the "smart guys" that there was a time when gun control was "inevitable" too. We see how that turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama's Views on Distraction Have Evolved, Too

 

Posted 05/11/2012 06:44 PM ET

Election: Remember how candidate Barack Obama complained in 2008 that any discussion not involving the economy was a "distraction"? This time, his entire campaign is built on distracting voters from the economy.

 

During his 2008 campaign, one of Obama's favorite words was "distraction." He constantly plugged it into his speeches and interviews to dismiss any controversy that might have erupted, or an issue he didn't particularly want to talk about.

Questions about how Obama could have sat in the pews and listened to Rev. Wright's anti-American, race-baiting screeds for years? Distraction. Questions about his relationship with radical Bill Ayers? Distraction. Questions about his qualifications to be president? Distraction.

 

Typically, Obama would follow up by talking about how we need to focus instead on "the real issues." Here's just a small sampling of Obama quotes:

• "You could see race bubbling up in a way that was distracting from the issues that I think are so important to America right now." March 2008

 

• "We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we'd see of the politics we're trying to end — the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter." March 2008

• "It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics." April 2008

• " Yes, we know what's coming. ... The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along." May 2008

• "When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people." July 2008

• "Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. ... I'm going to keep talking about the issues that matter — about the economy and health care and education and energy." October 2008

 

Obama even used the distraction gambit to challenge actual policies.

In 2002, for example, in his speech against the Iraq war, Obama said it was just an "attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income."

He even complained about the entire gay marriage issue in his "Audacity of Hope" book, saying that "the heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination of gays and lesbians."

Of course, the media dutifully played along, challenging any Republican who brought any of this up as trying to distract the public from the important issues.

 

But now that Obama has to defend his record on the issues he claimed were the only ones the mattered — jobs, energy, health care — he has nothing to offer but distractions.

He goes on "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" to distract the public for a while with his alleged coolness. He jets to Afghanistan to distract the country with boasts about how he courageously ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. Then he tries to distract the public again by shifting his position on gay marriage for the fifth time.

 

And, naturally, the media gladly fall in line, running 5,000-word pieces on Romney's high school days, for just one current example, as if that's what Americans actually care about.

Does Obama, or his friends in the media, really think he'll have enough material to keep the public distracted from his utter failure as a president all the way to November?

 

http://news.investor...tion.htm?p=full

 

And he thinks that this will work, thinks the American electorate is stupid (so do alot of the folks here)

Edited by Mike Steele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain questioned why tax cuts during war.

McCain wanted to tax so called Cadilac Health Ins. plans to cover Med-D costs and raise revenues.

McCain wanted to do some cutting of charity tax write-offs.

McCain was againist PORK before it was GOP fashionable to be so.

 

He wasn't always againist increased spending but he was for covering those with revenues.

 

He was a complete flop in how to deal with the 2008 financial meltdown and that doomed him. Actually it was over his head and in hind sight everybody elses and still is.

There were two rounds of tax cuts, the first in 2001 passed and was signed into law June of 2001. I don't recall if McCain was against this round of tax cuts, but either way, there was no war. The second round was in 2003 and was signed into law May of 2003. This is likely the round to which you refer. I don't recall, was McCain stating that the war would be paid for utterly and completely if there were no additional tax cuts and if the previous tax cuts were recsinded? No, I don't think so. McCain was against tax cuts because McCain is for greater taxation and will use whatever rationalization is available.

 

Your second point exemplifies this, McCain has no problem with ever greater government spending and greater taxation and would often give vocal support to the tax and spend liberals. McCain was against pork, McCain never signed on to pork spending for AZ? Or is he one that talked about cutting pork while taking a slice for himself? See, cutting pork isn't cutting spending, that money will be spent one way or the other, just ask McCain. Reducing the amount of money spent is a spending cut, not merely changing how it is spent.

 

McCain was labeled as a RINO because of two related reasons. He couldn't help himself taking jabs at the "unenlightened" elements of the right. He stood shoulder to shoulder with the Dems on many issues, and quite frankly spoke as if he would have been more comfortable joining Jeffords and switching parties. And we haven't even begun to talk about how McCain worked with Feingold to emasculate the GOP.

I had problems with MCain.

* Too hot tempered which led him to try too hard to be Mr. Nice Guy.

* His lack of expertise on certain subjects showed. Other pols know how to disguise it better then he does ( Obama).

* Still a Cold War warrior.

* His campaign was too slow in reacting to critizism that the 'net drives and the MSM thrives on.

* His campaign staff sucked.

 

No " PORK " ever by McCain in the sense of mid-night secretive slip ins of a bill or law. He was upfront however for publically backing bills that would benefit Az. such as the illfated Cyclotron. That was a monster project that would be a windfall for which ever state got it such as NASA was for Texas.

 

Since 2000 no Az. GOP'er CongressCritter has slipped in PORK .

How many other states can make that claim about their GOP'ers ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.

....

I had problems with MCain.

* Too hot tempered which led him to try too hard to be Mr. Nice Guy.

* His lack of expertise on certain subjects showed. Other pols know how to disguise it better then he does ( Obama).

* Still a Cold War warrior.

* His campaign was too slow in reacting to critizism that the 'net drives and the MSM thrives on.

* His campaign staff sucked.

 

....

 

Which of the things you listed had the biggest impact?

 

Oh, and the biggest was "I'm the next one in line"

Edited by Mike Steele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

[rants and cherry-picks,]

 

My current assessment is based on neither party grasping Simpson-Bowles by the horns and running with it.

 

Your turn.

 

+1

 

But we also need to finish the recovery before doing most of that. Unfortunately, once growth is back, we tend to forget and cut taxes/overspend again.

Edited by Ken Estes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[The attempted austerity in the US was the congressional shutdown over more spending, claiming that the stimulus was a failure in three months' time, followed by the scortched earth policy by a group more dedicated to bringing down the elected US president than working for the country. Pray tell, how would the US defaulting payments on the national debt have worked? The mere existence of the debt cap voted after a deficit budget fails logic.

 

In that case, federal spending must have plummeted in that period. Do you care to show some figures to support that "austerity"?

 

The history of 1920 and the 'failure' of Keynes in the 30s noted elsewhere are cooked history.

 

 

Please elaborate about the 1920-21 depression, preferably with supporting data showing the success of Keynes' ideas later in the 30's.

 

 

....

 

Even before I read Paul Krugman's opinion on it, I suspected that the recent 'discovery' of the 1920-21 "depression"/recession was a construct of the RW, mainly because it has garnered so little attention among historians of the US [i am not].

 

 

 

....

 

Interpretations of the end

 

Austrian School economists and historians argue that the 1921 recession was a necessary market correction, required to engineer the massive realignments required of private business and industry following the end of the War. Libertarian Austrian School historian Thomas Woods argues that President Harding's laissez-faire economic policies during the 1920-21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery.] Woods argued that, as there existed massive distortions in private markets due to government economic influence related to World War I, an equally massive "correction" to the distortions needed to occur as quickly as possible to realign investment and consumption with the new peace-time economic environment.

Daniel Kuehn's recent research calls into question many of the assertions Woods makes about the 1920-21 recession.[ Kuehn argues that the most substantial downsizing of government was attributable to the Wilson administration, and occurred well before the onset of the 1920-21 recession. Kuehn notes that the Harding administration raised revenues in 1921 by expanding the tax base considerably at the same time that it lowered rates. Kuehn also argues that Woods underemphasizes the role the monetary stimulus played in reviving the depressed economy and that, since the 1920-21 recession was not characterized by a deficiency in aggregate demand, fiscal stimulus was unwarranted. Economist Paul Krugman, who is critical of the Austrian interpretation, notes that the monetary base expanded significantly from 1922-1925, and that this expansion was accompanied by a reduction in commercial paper rates.[ Allan Metzger suggests that deflation and the flight of gold from hyper-inflationary Europe to the U.S. also contributed to the rising real money stock and economic recovery.

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

 

Also indicating why there is little mention of this event in most US histories:

....

In 1919, 4 million workers went on strike at some point, significantly more than the 1.2 million in the preceding years. Major strikes included an iron and steel workers strike in September 1919, a bituminous coal miners strike in November 1919 and a major railroad strike in 1920. According to economist J.R. Vernon, however, "By the spring of 1920, with unemployment rates rising, labor ceased its aggressive stance and labor peace returned”

 

In response to post-World War I inflation the Federal Reserve Bank of New York began raising interest rates sharply. In December 1919 the rate was raised from 4.75% to 5%. A month later it was raised to 6% and in June 1920 it was raised to 7% (the highest interest rates of any period except the 1970s and early 1980s).

Factors that economists have pointed to as potentially causing or contributing to the downturn include: troops returning from the war which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, a shock in agricultural commodity prices, tighter monetary policy, expectations of deflation.

....

 

 

And of course, Paul Krugman:

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

April 1, 2011, 5:25 pm

1921 and All That

 

Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.

....

 

So, again much ado about practically nothing. But the RW in its decline will grasp at anything. The future is so grim, try instead to rewrite the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[The attempted austerity in the US was the congressional shutdown over more spending, claiming that the stimulus was a failure in three months' time, followed by the scortched earth policy by a group more dedicated to bringing down the elected US president than working for the country. Pray tell, how would the US defaulting payments on the national debt have worked? The mere existence of the debt cap voted after a deficit budget fails logic.

 

In that case, federal spending must have plummeted in that period. Do you care to show some figures to support that "austerity"?

 

The history of 1920 and the 'failure' of Keynes in the 30s noted elsewhere are cooked history.

 

 

Please elaborate about the 1920-21 depression, preferably with supporting data showing the success of Keynes' ideas later in the 30's.

 

 

....

 

Even before I read Paul Krugman's opinion on it, I suspected that the recent 'discovery' of the 1920-21 "depression"/recession was a construct of the RW, mainly because it has garnered so little attention among historians of the US [i am not].

 

 

 

....

 

Interpretations of the end

 

Austrian School economists and historians argue that the 1921 recession was a necessary market correction, required to engineer the massive realignments required of private business and industry following the end of the War. Libertarian Austrian School historian Thomas Woods argues that President Harding's laissez-faire economic policies during the 1920-21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery.] Woods argued that, as there existed massive distortions in private markets due to government economic influence related to World War I, an equally massive "correction" to the distortions needed to occur as quickly as possible to realign investment and consumption with the new peace-time economic environment.

Daniel Kuehn's recent research calls into question many of the assertions Woods makes about the 1920-21 recession.[ Kuehn argues that the most substantial downsizing of government was attributable to the Wilson administration, and occurred well before the onset of the 1920-21 recession. Kuehn notes that the Harding administration raised revenues in 1921 by expanding the tax base considerably at the same time that it lowered rates. Kuehn also argues that Woods underemphasizes the role the monetary stimulus played in reviving the depressed economy and that, since the 1920-21 recession was not characterized by a deficiency in aggregate demand, fiscal stimulus was unwarranted. Economist Paul Krugman, who is critical of the Austrian interpretation, notes that the monetary base expanded significantly from 1922-1925, and that this expansion was accompanied by a reduction in commercial paper rates.[ Allan Metzger suggests that deflation and the flight of gold from hyper-inflationary Europe to the U.S. also contributed to the rising real money stock and economic recovery.

....

http://en.wikipedia....1920%E2%80%9321

 

Also indicating why there is little mention of this event in most US histories:

....

In 1919, 4 million workers went on strike at some point, significantly more than the 1.2 million in the preceding years. Major strikes included an iron and steel workers strike in September 1919, a bituminous coal miners strike in November 1919 and a major railroad strike in 1920. According to economist J.R. Vernon, however, "By the spring of 1920, with unemployment rates rising, labor ceased its aggressive stance and labor peace returned”

 

In response to post-World War I inflation the Federal Reserve Bank of New York began raising interest rates sharply. In December 1919 the rate was raised from 4.75% to 5%. A month later it was raised to 6% and in June 1920 it was raised to 7% (the highest interest rates of any period except the 1970s and early 1980s).

Factors that economists have pointed to as potentially causing or contributing to the downturn include: troops returning from the war which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, a shock in agricultural commodity prices, tighter monetary policy, expectations of deflation.

....

 

 

And of course, Paul Krugman:

 

http://krugman.blogs...1-and-all-that/

April 1, 2011, 5:25 pm

1921 and All That

 

Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.

....

 

So, again much ado about practically nothing. But the RW in its decline will grasp at anything. The future is so grim, try instead to rewrite the past.

 

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is as authoritative in economic matters as Yasser Arafat was in peace making. You can do better than quoting Wikipedia too.

 

The facts about the 1920 depression are there, like them or not. They aren't a recent creation. You wanted examples of "austerity" policies working and I gave you the most spectacular recovery from an economic collapse in recent US history, which led to a decade of unprecedented economic growth. Obviously not good enough, compared to FDR's shining success in the 30's, or the wonderful "recovery" we are experiencing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The facts about the 1920 depression are there, like them or not. They aren't a recent creation. You wanted examples of "austerity" policies working and I gave you the most spectacular recovery from an economic collapse in recent US history, which led to a decade of unprecedented economic growth. Obviously not good enough, compared to FDR's shining success in the 30's, or the wonderful "recovery" we are experiencing now.

It does get repetitive but it still bears repeating. Leftists, not limited in the USA to simply democrats, are enamored with government and the more that it can show government has the answers, the greater the affirmation of government being good. Harding's measures were designed to be government limiting, proposing that government did not have the answers, and those answers it might have probably weren't the right ones. This was catastrophic sacrilege to the nations leftists then and now.

 

Ten years later a champion of greater government means greater good took the stage and he proved how great is greater government by instituting programs which kept the nation's economy in depression for the best part of a generation. Moreover, his presidency left a legacy of huge government to which the nation remains shackled. All of this is good, the perpetual depression during the 1930s, and the shackles of government dependency inacted during that decade. It is good because government provided for them. It is good because the little people no longer have to fend for themselves, they had the tit of government from which to suckle. Is it little wonder that the "stimulus" of 2009 was designed primarily to keep the government breast full of milk? Is it little wonder that those who were the primary beneficiaries of the stimulus are perpetually latched to the teat? Those that subsist of the government are righteous, those that are weaned, dismissable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government is good because it is a control mechanism. The more direct access it has to the individual, the less competition it has. Nobody wants to be the controlee.....they see themselves as apparatchik. When government is pervasive but does not fit their views, it is bad. A pervasive government that they like, is good.

Less government is always bad as it means not having consolidated power to 'do good'. The dictatorship of the majority vis the anarchy of the diverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isnt a public anywhere that cant be successfully moved in a particular direction with a well thought out media campaign. The recent French election proved that.

 

I dont see the Americans as any less prone to it then anywhere else.

That of course depends on whether we identify our mistake and correct it. Fool me once...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...