urn2bfree
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 853
WW2.
Ha
How did WW2 cure the depresssion? By what mechanism?
WW2.
Ha
explanade said:That's the thing the Europeans don't seem to get, as they impose austerity programs on the PIIGS and then they see Greece have something like a -7.8% GDP the last quarter (hope I read that correctly) and they fall even further into debt.
Meanwhile, Switzerland has been very good with their fiscal situation, so much that their currency appreciates a lot against her neighbors' currencies and the result is that the economy is being hurt because tourism from neighboring countries is way down.
Well, it is hard for me to believe that this is a serious question. But in case it is, here is one for you- have you ever heard of a country in an all-encompassing war that did not experience full employment and usually inflation, or at least an end to deflation?How did WW2 cure the depresssion? By what mechanism?
In case it's a serious question, why not just answer it?Well, it is hard for me to believe that this is a serious question. But in case it is, here is one for you- ...
GregLee said:In case it's a serious question, why not just answer it?
So, the mechanism for ending the depression was the government paying many workers to do something or other. Is that the answer to the question?All these workers are being paid.
Well, either that or the massive destruction of capital goods, infrastructure and human life that required rebuilding,reinvesting and reproducing.So, the mechanism for ending the depression was the government paying many workers to do something or other. Is that the answer to the question?
GregLee said:So, the mechanism for ending the depression was the government paying many workers to do something or other. Is that the answer to the question?
explanade said:Was there a big debt problems after WWII?
All those war-production jobs went away. And then there was a post-WWII boom that lasted a few decades.
MichaelB said:Well, either that or the massive destruction of capital goods, infrastructure and human life that required rebuilding,reinvesting and reproducing.
There's a saying in spanish: de lo sublime a lo surreal...roughly, from the sublime to the ridiculous.
So, the mechanism for ending the depression was the government paying many workers to do something or other. Is that the answer to the question?
The question was to give the anti-keynesians a chance to explain away the HUGE government expenditures of WWII as the obvious solution that ended the depression. This is not possible. The government temporarily took up a huge percentage of the economy. This temporarily crested demand and jobs and then the economy recovered and the government stepped out. This is flat out a success of Keynesian policy. But it took Huge government investment. The lesser efforts of the New Deal, as big as they were could not jump start the economy. But the power of the government to SAVE a sputtering economy is undeniable in this instance. The antiKeynsians refuse to acknowledge this FACTUAL account of history. War and extraction did not end the depression. Huge government spending did. And huge government investment does not only have to be to blow stuff and people up. We need new roads new bridges new transportation new energy projects. We CAN invest Huge monies in smart projects and it can start a recovery. BUT then these projects MUST be temporary so the government shoves the economy into gear but then gets out of the way. It could work. It did before.
Why must they be temporary?BUT then these projects MUST be temporary ...
The question was to give the anti-keynesians a chance to explain away the HUGE government expenditures of WWII as the obvious solution that ended the depression. This is not possible. The government temporarily took up a huge percentage of the economy. This temporarily crested demand and jobs and then the economy recovered and the government stepped out. This is flat out a success of Keynesian policy. But it took Huge government investment. The lesser efforts of the New Deal, as big as they were could not jump start the economy. But the power of the government to SAVE a sputtering economy is undeniable in this instance. The antiKeynsians refuse to acknowledge this FACTUAL account of history. War and extraction did not end the depression. Huge government spending did. And huge government investment does not only have to be to blow stuff and people up. We need new roads new bridges new transportation new energy projects. We CAN invest Huge monies in smart projects and it can start a recovery. BUT then these projects MUST be temporary so the government shoves the economy into gear but then gets out of the way. It could work. It did before.
Well, either that or the massive destruction of capital goods, infrastructure and human life that required rebuilding,reinvesting and reproducing.
Me neither. Mine was a silly attempt at providing a few words of context to a previous post. I shouldn't have posted because I'm not really sure what this thread is about, and that's always a bad sign. Kinda like the roads in West Virginia - forever winding all over the place.That produced the post- war economic stimulus for a chunk of the world. It's not a mechanism I would make my first choice.
The main problem today is there is not incentive to create jobs. Look at the issue Boeing faces and also the oil companies looking for drilling contracts. I'd say govt does not WANT new jobs to be created..........it's pretty clear!
Gone4Good said:Isn't this the Broken Window Fallacy . . . the idea that we can't create growth by destroying something, even if it's replacement creates a job?.
Okay, let's pay people to dig holes and others to fill them in. If it promises to work to move our economy in a good direction, why not do it? What do you have against it? And why should I care? I think you're letting ideology get in the way of finding working solutions.
Boeing is looking to create new jobs? Or just move jobs to a lower wage state in SC while getting rid of them in Washington state?
So unless the govt. kowtows to everything that private industry demands, it's blocking new jobs?
Because the govt. being so accommodating (the SEC and the CFTC sitting on their hands) worked out terrifically in the last decade, didn't it?
If you remember back in the 70s there was a policy of not allowing more than a bit more than 2 million cars in the US from Japan... it was to help the US auto workers... but the cost to the economy was over $700K per job saved... it would have been cheaper to have just paid them their salary and let Japan import as many cars as they wanted...
Just throwing money at something is not the way to go... do something that actually will create a job with a company that will continue to employ that person after the stimulus is gone...
FinanceDude said:Doesn't Boeing have the right to move their jobs whereever they want, or is that now illegal? I suppose it would be better to move them overseas, and lose those jobs forever?