?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I'd be really interested to hear opinions about this. I found some of the statistics in it close to unbelievable, but I trust the writer.

It's about poverty in Ohio.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1076608,00.html

Tags:

Comments

leadensky
Nov. 3rd, 2003 02:48 pm (UTC)
You are talking out your ass about the New Deal.

Bullshit.

I can recommend you a number of excellent books that prove the exact opposite of what you've written.

Do it. Provide me one reference by an economist that shows the US economy improving under the work programs or welfare that FDR implemented.

The stockmarket crashed, started to recover, and then did a nose-dive again when FDR started screwing with things.

CCC and the rest did a lot for the country - greatuncles on both sides help build Boulder - but it fucked businesses and prevented the regrowth that was occurring prior to the implementation of those programs.

It's like saying that the price limits on gas during the seventies helped people.

You can't take money from people, channel it through the government, and give it to other people, and expect more money to come out than went in.

- hossgal
se_parsons
Nov. 3rd, 2003 07:06 pm (UTC)
This is all going to make no difference if we argue it.

I will pull up a bunch of Keynesians and you will pull up a bunch of Supply-siders and seeing the debate is STILL going on, neither of us win.

I think Supply Side doesn't work and I'm sure you'd agree about the Keynesian viewpoint. Lately, the Supply siders have had a concerted attack on the New Deal in order to further their current political agenda and economic strategy. This same debate was going on when I was in college and still rages on.

If economists can't agree on it (and they can't) then we won't either. Two schools of thought, two answers.

We can argue about the validity of each until the cows come home and we won't agree.

I get a lot of my information about it from Thomas K. McCraw and his essay "The New Deal and the MIxed Economy" from "Fifty Years Later, the New Deal Evaluated." HE's from the Harvard School of Business, or at least was at the time.

Another good resource is "The Great Depression" by Robert S. McElvaine, though he's an historian and not an economist. He just rounds up economic thought and works it into the bigger picture. And brings it at least into the Reagan era recession. I think he's dead on for any time.

"Part of our difficulties today are the result of the failure of both conservatives and liberals to look at the full economic picture. Most conservatives have ignored the problem of maldistribution and have depended on a growing economy to solve all problems. For their part, liberals from the 1960s through the early 1980s concentrated ONLY on the division of the pie, not on its size. Questions of distribution are fundamental, but so are those of productivity. We need a more equitable distribution of wealth, not of poverty. IF we are to succeed economically and morally, we must concern ourselves BOTH with the size of the pie AND with how it is sliced."

But both of these guys are Keynesians.