28 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think there is a particular level of debt which can automatically make you unsound. Debt in general is unsound, and we've been conditioned not only in the USA, but worldwide to accept ever increasing levels of debt, both personal and public.
So you are saying that any business which has a debt larger than 18% of its turnover is not a sound business?
In the 19th century in the US, mortgages were almost unheard of. Owning a home meant you got land very cheap and probably built the home on it yourself. These days people have been conditioned to accept 30 years of dept, and paying for the home 2.5 to 3 times, or to never actually owning it. More and more people are piling up 10x of thousands of dollars of consumer credit card debt in the quest to keep up with the Joneses. Who profits from this transformation of attitude? Where does it lead?
Why is there pressure to establish a Wold Bank?
28 Aug 10
1 edit
1920 Depression,
"The situation was dire after World War I. Unemployment jumped from 4 percent to almost 12 percent and the Gross National Product fell 17 percent."
"As a member of the Harding administration, [Hoover] recommend government stimulation of the economy to stop the 1920 depression, but Harding ignored his advice and let the recovery take place naturally without bailouts or government spending. Instead, Harding cut taxes on all income groups, cut the budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922 and cut the national debt, not deficit, but debt by one-third! The recovery was swift, with evidence of it beginning in the late summer of 1921. Unemployment fell to 6.7 percent and in 1923 finally to 2.4 percent."
http://ezinearticles.com/?Warren-G-Harding-and-the-1920-Depression---Learning-the-Right-Lesson&id=3121606
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonwow. deserves its own thread.
[b]1920 Depression,
"The situation was dire after World War I. Unemployment jumped from 4 percent to almost 12 percent and the Gross National Product fell 17 percent."
"As a member of the Harding administration, [Hoover] recommend government stimulation of the economy to stop the 1920 depression, but Harding ignored his advice and ...[text shortened]... rticles.com/?Warren-G-Harding-and-the-1920-Depression---Learning-the-Right-Lesson&id=3121606
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarHow many countries are in the red every single year?
A company that has debt and plans to get further into debt every single year isn't going to be in business very long. That's why many businesses have cheated their employees and have defaulted on their retirement plans. The companies could not afford to pay the debt that their social program put into place.
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by normbenignhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png
The USA is and has been on that track since WW2, even the year of the Clinton miracle budget surplus, in the end that fiscal year the debt increased.
This graph doesn't quite agree with that analysis. Rather, it shows a steady decline of debt as a fraction of GDP until Reagan comes along, with a solid decrease during the Eisenhower years of 90%+ top marginal income tax rates.
28 Aug 10
3 edits
I believe he said debt itself, not debt as compared to something else. Try comparing apples to apples when you ask follow up questions. Trying to change the subject by brinfing up something different may be a nice way to win points, but it isn't good for discussion.
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarDid you look at the graph itself? I reckon you didn't, but you would've realized how foolish your comment is.
I believe he said debt itself, not debt as compared to something else. Try comparing apples to apples when you ask follow up questions. Trying to change the subject by brinfing up something different may be a nice way to win points, but it isn't good for discussion.
28 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe Revenue Act of 1921 (which Harding actually had very little to do with) cut some taxes which had been imposed during WWI to help pay for the war (what an un-Republican concept), raised corporate taxes (which would send right wingers screaming these days) and did impose some cuts including cutting the top rate down to 50% (still significantly higher than it is now):
[/b]1920 Depression,
"The situation was dire after World War I. Unemployment jumped from 4 percent to almost 12 percent and the Gross National Product fell 17 percent."
"As a member of the Harding administration, [Hoover] recommend government stimulation of the economy to stop the 1920 depression, but Harding ignored his advice and ...[text shortened]... rticles.com/?Warren-G-Harding-and-the-1920-Depression---Learning-the-Right-Lesson&id=3121606
Nearing the end of the session, harried lawmakers agreed to a relatively moderate package of reforms. They eliminated the excess profits tax, but replaced some of the lost revenue with a hike in corporate income tax rates. They also lowered the top marginal income tax rate on individuals to 50 percent — a dramatic reduction from wartime highs but far less than Mellon had requested. Legislators increased the exemption for heads of families and for dependents, making the tax base somewhat narrower and lightening the burden for many middle income taxpayers. And they introduced preferential treatment for capital gains income.
http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum/1901-1932.htm
The recovery from the 1920 recession was hardly swift; your own article concedes there was 3 years of above average unemployment. And the causes of the recession itself i.e. excess manufacturing capacity in the US caused by over-investment in manufacturing because of high European demand for goods following the devastation of the war (which was reduced sharply as Europe rebuilt their own industries) is hardly likely to be repeated since the Big Money political parties are agreed on policies which have caused the gutting of US manufacturing (over 5 million jobs permanently lost in that sector in the last 10 years alone).
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat do you define as "swift" Einstein?
The Revenue Act of 1921 (which Harding actually had very little to do with) cut some taxes which had been imposed during WWI to help pay for the war (what an un-Republican concept), raised corporate taxes (which would send right wingers screaming these days) and did impose some cuts including cutting the top rate down to 50% (still significantly higher t ...[text shortened]... manufacturing (over 5 million jobs permanently lost in that sector in the last 10 years alone).
btw are these your own words? I see no quotation marks.
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonIn economic terms, I would define "swift" as within a year. In geological terms, a lot longer but we were talking economics.
What do you define as "swift" Einstein?
btw are these your own words? I see no quotation marks.
The first and third paragraphs are my words. The second paragraph is separated by a : at the end of the first paragraph and a citation is given immediately after the material. I'm pretty sure that meets proper standards for attribution of sources.
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, I based it on what you said. I was commenting on your words. I suppose making a comment to you about what you said does make me pretty foolish.
Did you look at the graph itself? I reckon you didn't, but you would've realized how foolish your comment is.
Note I was not commenting about the graph. I was commenting on the fact that you changed the subject in your reply.
29 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarEconomists usually look at debt as a fraction of GDP, since that gives a more sensible indication of how easily one can pay back the debt. Nevertheless, you can see a steady decrease of the debt itself from about 1945 to 1975, and a fast decline of debt as a fraction of GDP from 1945 to 1981. The debt then decreases again during about 1995-2001.
No, I based it on what you said. I was commenting on your words. I suppose making a comment to you about what you said does make me pretty foolish.
Note I was not commenting about the graph. I was commenting on the fact that you changed the subject in your reply.