Liberals demonstrate the meaning of insanity.

Post Reply
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Liberals demonstrate the meaning of insanity.

Post by kramer » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:25 pm

1939:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. .... And an enormous debt to boot!"

- Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the Treasury, and a close personal confidante of Roosevelt, May 9, 1939.
2013:
"...QE was not at all useful," [unless you're the 1% who is using that printed money to stock up on gold and leaving us the bill]

"I believe that at the time, it was just one more tool that the Fed introduced to try to help the economy," he said. "My point, ultimately, is the idea that very quickly into QE, it started becoming obvious that it wasn't working in the way that it was supposed to."

- Huszar, a senior fellow at Rutgers Business School and former Federal Reserve official
Paul Krugman confirms QE is a total failure:
The financial crisis that started the Great Recession is now far behind us. Indeed, by most measures it ended more than four years ago. Yet our economy remains depressed.

. . .
Mr. Summers went on to draw a remarkable moral: We have, he suggested, an economy whose normal condition is one of inadequate demand — of at least mild depression — and which only gets anywhere close to full employment when it is being buoyed by bubbles.

I’d weigh in with some further evidence.

. . .

Again, the evidence suggests that we have become an economy whose normal state is one of mild depression, whose brief episodes of prosperity occur only thanks to bubbles and unsustainable borrowing.

Why might this be happening? One answer could be slowing population growth. A growing population creates a demand for new houses, new office buildings, and so on; when growth slows, that demand drops off. America’s working-age population rose rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, as baby boomers grew up, and its work force rose even faster, as women moved into the labor market. That’s now all behind us. And you can see the effects: Even at the height of the housing bubble, we weren’t building nearly as many houses as in the 1970s.

Another important factor may be persistent trade deficits, which emerged in the 1980s [Translation: Blame Reagan!!!] and since then have fluctuated but never gone away. [Did Krugman just tell a lie?: Click the link and find out-->> "Until 1970, the United States enjoyed a surplus in its merchandise trade with the rest of the world. Since then, with oil prices higher and competition from its trading partners keener, trade deficits have been the rule."]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/opini ... slump.html?
If we are in a depression like economy, it's mainly because Clinton and the Republican congress gave China PNTR that resulted in a third of our manufacturing base being sent overseas. Manufacturing creates wealth. Giving it away does the opposite.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Post Reply