A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

Martian Republic · 2004-09-13 20:07:05

How can the Mars Society take advantage of this situation? (Besides cashing in our savings bonds...)

In the present economic system, there absolutly nothing we can do, because the present economic system if finished and can not be redeemed.

But, if we go with an FDR type recovery of giving the Treasury Department the power to generate credit and a bankruptcy re-organization of the Federal Reserve system. Then we have some thing that we can put in front of the American people. The Federal would be able to finance government work project with credit generated from the Treasury Department. Of course most of those work project would have to be dedicated to projects inside the United States, but we would also dedicate some of those work project for building city space too. I am figuring about 90/10% break. Ninety present down here on a jobs program and the other 10% in a jobs program for space. Since the Federal Government is going to have to generate at least five hundred billion to maybe even one trillion dollars worth of fund on those programs on a big enough scale to have any significant impact on the U.S. Economy to be able to revive it. So there would be $50 to $100 dollars for our work program/space projects.

Since building a city in space beat starving to death, you might get a few takers to support your plan.

Giving the Treasury Department was that FDR generated the funds for his work projects that saved America from economic collapse.

I also might add, as that when Kennedy started the Moon Mission, the unemployment rate went down by two or three million people too.

Larry,

smurf975 · 2004-09-13 20:25:15

How can the Mars Society take advantage of this situation? (Besides cashing in our savings bonds...)
In the present economic system, there absolutly nothing we can do, because the present economic system if finished and can not be redeemed.
But, if we go with an FDR type recovery of giving the Treasury Department the power to generate credit and a bankruptcy re-organization of the Federal Reserve system. Then we have some thing that we can put in front of the American people. The Federal would be able to finance government work project with credit generated from the Treasury Department. Of course most of those work project would have to be dedicated to projects inside the United States, but we would also dedicate some of those work project for building city space too. I am figuring about 90/10% break. Ninety present down here on a jobs program and the other 10% in a jobs program for space. Since the Federal Government is going to have to generate at least five hundred billion to maybe even one trillion dollars worth of fund on those programs on a big enough scale to have any significant impact on the U.S. Economy to be able to revive it. So there would be $50 to $100 dollars for our work program/space projects.
Since building a city in space beat starving to death, you might get a few takers to support your plan.
Giving the Treasury Department was that FDR generated the funds for his work projects that saved America from economic collapse.
I also might add, as that when Kennedy started the Moon Mission, the unemployment rate went down by two or three million people too.
Larry,

Some sources say that the FDR programs didn't do a lot at the end except spend a lot of money and get Americans used to socialisme.

As far as I know it was really WWII that kicked back American economy into its tracks.

So I don't think a Mars/Space program will do anything for America's short to mid term problems. Well not anymore then just taking that money that you would borrow and give it to all American citizens in cash.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-13 21:08:57

How can the Mars Society take advantage of this situation? (Besides cashing in our savings bonds...)
In the present economic system, there absolutly nothing we can do, because the present economic system if finished and can not be redeemed.
But, if we go with an FDR type recovery of giving the Treasury Department the power to generate credit and a bankruptcy re-organization of the Federal Reserve system. Then we have some thing that we can put in front of the American people. The Federal would be able to finance government work project with credit generated from the Treasury Department. Of course most of those work project would have to be dedicated to projects inside the United States, but we would also dedicate some of those work project for building city space too. I am figuring about 90/10% break. Ninety present down here on a jobs program and the other 10% in a jobs program for space. Since the Federal Government is going to have to generate at least five hundred billion to maybe even one trillion dollars worth of fund on those programs on a big enough scale to have any significant impact on the U.S. Economy to be able to revive it. So there would be $50 to $100 dollars for our work program/space projects.
Since building a city in space beat starving to death, you might get a few takers to support your plan.
Giving the Treasury Department was that FDR generated the funds for his work projects that saved America from economic collapse.
I also might add, as that when Kennedy started the Moon Mission, the unemployment rate went down by two or three million people too.
Larry,
Some sources say that the FDR programs didn't do a lot at the end except spend a lot of money and get Americans used to socialisme.
As far as I know it was really WWII that kicked back American economy into its tracks.
So I don't think a Mars/Space program will do anything for America's short to mid term problems. Well not anymore then just taking that money that you would borrow and give it to all American citizens in cash.

FDR programs were not just social programs, although he had a few social programs like Social Security. FDR also had infrastructural project too, which are actual nation building projects of the physical economy. Rural Electrification and Dam building projects are example of this type of building up the physical economy. FDR picked four river to develop. The Columbia, Colorado, St Loraine, Tennessee river. We still have the Tennessee Valley Authority which paid back it government loan too. But, it took them twenty to thirty years to do it though. That why you find most of the Aluminum foundries on either or near the Colombian or Tennessee rivers for access to the cheap power that was put into place by FDR. Now I will admit that the mobilization finished off the last bit of the sting of the depression. Also we did not go back into a depression because of the Brinton Wood Agreement for building up Europe after the war with cheap long term credit for the express purpose for building up the infrastructure in Europe. The Brinton Wood Agreement was the brain child of FDR and the people that supported his policies after he died. So the Brinton Wood System worked, but it was taken down in 1971 with the Nixon floating exchange rate. That where the financial system was de-coupled from the physical economy and we got our run away inflation with the impending economic collapse that we are discussion here on this forum right now. If FDR economic policies were so bad and they didn't work, then why did he get elected four times. Not only that, many of his policies servived his death twenty or even thirty years later. So he must have been doing something right. You generally don’t keep doing some thing that don’t work. Oh, I forgot about George Bush. Well, you almost never continue doing thing that don’t.

Larry,

smurf975 · 2004-09-13 22:26:03

Here's http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-29-03.html]an example of the negative reports that I read about FDR's new deal. However http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/dep … ml]looking at this page shows me other information.

The funny thing about Bush (who you mentioned in your last line) is that I read an article about tax cuts and in it showed that in American history tax cuts have never ever worked. I don't remember the source.

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html]Here is an article (opinion?) that descripes the bush tax cuts with Reagons supply side economics. (in a very negative way)

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0227-05.htm]This is another interesting article about the Bush II goverment being the richest in history.

Morris · 2004-09-14 06:07:31

You're correct. IMHO, this is a symptom of the single greatest economic strain on the modern world. We tried to trade a lifestyle whose cost was high in terms of labor for one whose cost was high in terms of money, and ended up increasing the cost in both. Particularly here in the States. Labor saving devices serve no purpose if every time one saves you an hour you immediately fit some other task into it. The modern world must simplify its lifestyle or perish.

There is a book called The Two-Income Trap by a Harvard lawyer (I forget her name). She analyzes the shift from the husband as breadwinner economy to the two-income economy and comes to the conclusion that the real family income of the "husband as breadwinner" economy was greater that the combined incomes in the modern situation and without disruptive social problems caused by the "latchkey" child syndrome.

She further analyzes the economy in terms of the effects of frequent layoffs and lengthy times between layoff and re-employment, the huge increases in personal bankruptcies caused by these shifts and comes to the conclusion that the average worker is much worse off now than in the 50s and suggests that the trend is going to continue.

Gennaro · 2004-09-14 06:15:41

So, male chauvinism is the answer to female chauvinism? :sleep: Not very original.

I don't get this. I didn't say nice guys were better providers and keepers of families in comparison to women but to other males.
As for rearing children there's no competition, women are biologically and for millions of years geared to the task.
In other words, if not PC-conditioned what to think - like feminism's constant denigration of feminimity - most families would have women become prime executive of home operations simply by free choice. I could add that free choice certainly must exist for the contrary.
Economically speaking, it's nothing but a clean cut case of pure specialization.

Problem with feminism is that it enters a scene where nice men are bred to accomodate women in every single way in the hope of getting laid and if they hear women tell them men are inherently bad and evil creatures those guys will sacrifice their masculinity as well.
At the same time women haven't changed their ideas of attraction which can be summed up in the three words of money, status and confidence. This means they'll end up with males who are not good providers but simply couldn't give a sh*t or with whimps they emotionally can't tolerate with break-ups and divorces ensuing.
In the end everyone loses (with the possible exception of a handful of silverbacked harem keepers).
In fact, what women actually want probably run contrary to the set goals of total equalization of resources, income and status since this will rob men of the very confidence women seek.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-14 06:26:23

...comes to the conclusion that the average worker is much worse off now than in the 50s and suggests that the trend is going to continue.

Quite right, and we can expect a steady decline further.

But then widespread economic hardship and the resultant social discord present opportunities all their own. I'm starting think it might be part of what we need. ???

Morris · 2004-09-14 07:02:38

Giving the Treasury Department was that FDR generated the funds for his work projects that saved America from economic collapse.

??? FDR did not prevent a collapse of the US economy, it had already collapsed before FDR was even elected. The question is whether or not FDR's policies helped or hindered recovery. Most free-market economists think that they hindered recovery. Certainly the recovery was very slow. Recovery from most previous crashes occurred within 2-3 years but in the Great Depression it was uncertain whether or not recovery had occurred even 10 years later.

Morris · 2004-09-14 07:20:47

DISASTER WARNING!!!
_
Speeches ignore impending U.S. debt disaster:
No mention of fiscal gap estimated as high as $72 trillion
by Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Bureau
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Washington -- The first of the 77 million-strong Baby Boom generation will begin to retire in just four years. The economic consequences of this fact -- as scary as they are foreseeable -- are all but ignored by President Bush and
Democratic challenger John Kerry, who discuss just about everything but the biggest fiscal challenge of modern times.
____
If you dare, read the full text of this article at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … ...intable

Yes, most folks are aware that the crisis is coming. What bothers me is that politicians are avoiding making long term plans NOW. Alan Greenspan has made it quite clear that the later we begin the deal with this issue, the harder it will be.

The Bush administration is in fantasy land as Gigolo George continues to make every oriface of his administration available for the satisfaction of any corporate demand (or even minor request) and the Kerry plans have retreated to a repetition of the failed economic policies of the past.

Palomar · 2004-09-14 07:33:17

At the same time women haven't changed their ideas of attraction which can be summed up in the three words of money, status and confidence. This means they'll end up with males who are not good providers but simply couldn't give a sh*t or with whimps they emotionally can't tolerate with break-ups and divorces ensuing.
In the end everyone loses (with the possible exception of a handful of silverbacked harem keepers).
In fact, what women actually want probably run contrary to the set goals of total equalization of resources, income and status since this will rob men of the very confidence women seek.

*Hmmmmm. Well, usually I avoid gender discussions (because there's enough blame to go around and "it takes two"). And the added consistent social reinforcement bombardment infants are exposed to from day one, pertaining to whether the blanket they're bundled up in in the hospital nursery is pink or blue... :;): Then the complexity, like this issue...

Actually, I've known and seen a lot more women willing to marry and settle down with guys who are less attractive (by society's dictates of what is attractive) than vice versa. It seems women are generally more willing/able to fall in love with a man who isn't particularly attractive nor possesses "status" (in the community or otherwise). I've seen more women willing to tough it out with a man who has been disabled from an injury or who is suffering from a debilitating illness than vice versa.

Perhaps my perceptions are incorrect, but my comments are based on experience and observation.

And even a cursory glance at any magazine rack in any store is enough to "tell" me repeatedly that I'm "not good enough" (for anything) unless I look like Bimbo Flavor of the Month. :laugh:

Both genders have their unique strengths and resiliencies...and both have their unique stupidities which contribute to all -this-.

Just wanted to make a few comments, and sorry if this is a bit further "off-topic."

--Cindy

Morris · 2004-09-14 07:45:28

I want less federal spending and let the local government decide how they will
spend their local budgets which have increased without increasing taxes.

And just how did the local budgets increase without increasing taxes? The only healthy way that I can think of is that the tax base increased because more people/businesses wanted to locate there. While this sometimes happens, it is not typical. More usual is deficit financing, a distinctly unhealthy way of dealing with this issue.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-14 07:58:57

More usual is deficit financing, a distinctly unhealthy way of dealing with this issue.

Unless the localities actually cut spending. State and local governments handling their own financing would be much more efficient than adding extra layers, the only hang-up is that the resulting budget shortfall would have to be corrected with either higher (local) taxes or cuts in spending, meaning cuts in services. This isn't really that severe of a problem, it just requires some creative policy making to create conditions that require fewer of those services. Sometimes it's fairly simple (crime related) while other issues are more complex (homelessness, unemployment) but it isn't just a question of money. In many ways, when it comes to government, more is less. The more money you pump in through centralized systems, the less return you get for it.

Gennaro · 2004-09-14 08:02:11

*Hmmmmm. Well, usually I avoid gender discussions (because there's enough blame to go around and "it takes two"). And the added consistent social reinforcement bombardment infants are exposed to from day one, pertaining to whether the blanket they're bundled up in in the hospital nursery is pink or blue... :;): Then the complexity, like this issue...
Actually, I've known and seen a lot more women willing to marry and settle down with guys who are less attractive (by society's dictates of what is attractive) than vice versa. It seems women are generally more willing/able to fall in love with a man who isn't particularly attractive nor possesses "status" (in the community or otherwise). I've seen more women willing to tough it out with a man who has been disabled from an injury or who is suffering from a debilitating illness than vice versa.
Perhaps my perceptions are incorrect, but my comments are based on experience and observation.
And even a cursory glance at any magazine rack in any store is enough to "tell" me repeatedly that I'm "not good enough" (for anything) unless I look like Bimbo Flavor of the Month. :laugh:
Both genders have their unique strengths and resiliencies...and both have their unique stupidities which contribute to all -this-.
Just wanted to make a few comments, and sorry if this is a bit further "off-topic."
--Cindy

Your perceptions are entirely correct, it's only that I generalize wildly which is unavoidable in a discussion like this, not to mention that I left out the unquantifiable factor of LOVE as a point on its own merits. And you're right, we're not only far out off-topic but dealing with a highly volatile subject.
In addition, and maybe I go too far by admitting to the fact, but I personally hold almost zero attraction for the "Bimbo Flavor of the Month", quite sure I never did.
I want a woman who is kind, considerate and responsible. Not something that risks blowing up in your face one way or the other. Adrenalin, as you know, is not a turn-on. And she 's a brunette, has a small round stomach, is somewhat garish and totally unfashionable.

Allright, better stop now. ???

smurf975 · 2004-09-14 09:22:43

I want less federal spending and let the local government decide how they will
spend their local budgets which have increased without increasing taxes.
And just how did the local budgets increase without increasing taxes? The only healthy way that I can think of is that the tax base increased because more people/businesses wanted to locate there. While this sometimes happens, it is not typical. More usual is deficit financing, a distinctly unhealthy way of dealing with this issue.

Well what I mean is less federal spending and taxes and the local government then have the ability to increase their taxes as now they receive less funding from the feds but the local people are also paying less taxes to the feds.

However I'm not saying forget the USA and from now on many little countries. So you (the local governments) are still working closley together.

And also to keep a check of all the states, there must be something like the treaty of Maastricht. Meaning strict rules on local government budgets. If a state doesn't follow them then they can expect fines.

smurf975 · 2004-09-14 09:27:58

*Hmmmmm. Well, usually I avoid gender discussions (because there's enough blame to go around and "it takes two"). And the added consistent social reinforcement bombardment infants are exposed to from day one, pertaining to whether the blanket they're bundled up in in the hospital nursery is pink or blue... :;): Then the complexity, like this issue...
Actually, I've known and seen a lot more women willing to marry and settle down with guys who are less attractive (by society's dictates of what is attractive) than vice versa. It seems women are generally more willing/able to fall in love with a man who isn't particularly attractive nor possesses "status" (in the community or otherwise). I've seen more women willing to tough it out with a man who has been disabled from an injury or who is suffering from a debilitating illness than vice versa.
Perhaps my perceptions are incorrect, but my comments are based on experience and observation.
And even a cursory glance at any magazine rack in any store is enough to "tell" me repeatedly that I'm "not good enough" (for anything) unless I look like Bimbo Flavor of the Month. :laugh:
Both genders have their unique strengths and resiliencies...and both have their unique stupidities which contribute to all -this-.
Just wanted to make a few comments, and sorry if this is a bit further "off-topic."
--Cindy
Your perceptions are entirely correct, it's only that I generalize wildly which is unavoidable in a discussion like this, not to mention that I left out the unquantifiable factor of LOVE as a point on its own merits. And you're right, we're not only far out off-topic but dealing with a highly volatile subject.
In addition, and maybe I go too far by admitting to the fact, but I personally hold almost zero attraction for the "Bimbo Flavor of the Month", quite sure I never did.
I want a woman who is kind, considerate and responsible. Not something that risks blowing up in your face one way or the other. Adrenalin, as you know, is not a turn-on. And she 's a brunette, has a small round stomach, is somewhat garish and totally unfashionable.
Allright, better stop now. ???

Well now you two are giving attractive and thin women a bad name just because of some person that is a nude model.

Whats is beatifull anyway? Its truely in the eye of the beholder. In some cultures they find overweight people beatifull in others tall people. Everytime you look and compare your self to one of those magazines you are following some other persons views of whats beatifull and not your own.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-14 10:12:12

Here's http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-29-03.html]an example of the negative reports that I read about FDR's new deal. However http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/dep … ml]looking at this page shows me other information.
The funny thing about Bush (who you mentioned in your last line) is that I read an article about tax cuts and in it showed that in American history tax cuts have never ever worked. I don't remember the source.
http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html]Here is an article (opinion?) that descripes the bush tax cuts with Reagons supply side economics. (in a very negative way)
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0227-05.htm]This is another interesting article about the Bush II goverment being the richest in history.

I am not claiming that FDR did everything correct, but he did go at the depression with sound fiscal policies to restart a dead physical economy of the United States. I also don't have any doubt that he make a lot mistakes too. But, saying that, most of his policies were good for the United State and saved the us from a Depression, Fascism and rebuild America into an economic power house that has never been duplicated in the entire history of the world.

The same people that complain about the bad policies of FDR are the same one that brag Reagans, Bush I, Bush II economic policies.

Like go figure that out?

But, to answer that question I’m going to have to go into a subject that I really did not want to get into on this forum to explain why that so. I have no doubt that I will be called a conspiracy theorist and they will say, your one them.

But, here the answer to the question:

The financial system is getting ready to come down in some worse than a Wall Street crash of 1929. It will be more like 1926 German Stock Market crash that also out the German Banking System too and so was several magnitudes worse than even the Wall Street stock market crash. This collapse was caused by a Reagan supply side type policies of Hoover and of Wilson with there financial bankers like Mellion, Morgan, Brown Brother Harrimans, etc. To defend there financial interest even during the depression they finance Adolph Hitler rise to power and almost staged a coup against FDR. Prescott Bush the grandfather of the Current President of the United States was one of Adolph Hitler’s bankers managing IG Farbin banking concerns during the 1930's to the first part of the 1940's when is was seized by Roosevelt for trading with the enemy's of the United States during time of all out war. Roosevelt was not get ride of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System is a private bank with a government Charter to function as a National Central Bank of the United States, but is not part of the United States Government. FDR was not able to get ride of the Federal Reserve System which through the management of those banking interest above and other caused the 1929 stock market crash, but, FDR was able to regulate the financial system, banking and the Federal Reserve System. Well, it not enough to hold these banking interest in check, you still have to have some working capital to work with. So What FDR did was go back to a Abraham Lincoln type credit system. Under Abraham Lincoln the Treasury Department had the right to generate credit which was what the Greenback Dollar was that Lincoln use for currency. Which by the way took us through another war and finances the rebuilding the south, colonizing the west and touching off an industrial revolution. But, FDR bring that authority back to the Treasury Department to be able to control the credit and direct where it suppose to go to start the American Recovery from that Depression. After that the war and then the rebuilding of Europe after the war. The British had the Gold Standard and Roosevelt setup the Gold Reserve Standard as his choice of backing money and credit.

It is on this scene that FDR step onto history and changes it. He had a pretty good idea of who he was fighting and what he needed to do to save America.

You will knottiest that the Bush Family is still with us and who's grandfather were openly financing fascism and Adolf Hitler himself both before the war and during war with Nazi Germany. If you also look at the main line new services inside the United States, you will see that they are controlled by the same people who are behind George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfawitz, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. That it is this same crowd that is pushing this Reagan supply side type policies today also. They are also the one's pushing for deregulation financial systems too, the one's that FDR put into place. So what this big push for war in the middle east, there trying to defend there interest again and there prepared to sacrifice the general welfare of the population to defend there financial interest. So that why you see the same failed policies being pushed out there again. These current policies of George Bush are not being pushed because they work, but to defend the power structure and those that control that power structure. So how do they protect there interest, go back to fascism and Dick Cheney, Paul Wofowitz and other are bonified fascist too who were trained to be fascist by Leo Struss. That why Dick Cheney, Paul Wofowitz and Donald Rumsfeld are pushing many of the same policies of Adolf Hitler, because that what they are.
And if you need any proof of that, I have three web links below that you can check out to your own little harts desire to make sure that what I said is absolutly true. If your still not convinced, then take that information they give you and do your own independent study to prove it to yourself.

http://larouchein2004.net/images/pamphl … 304cos.jpg

http://larouchein2004.net/images/pamphl … 01cos2.jpg

http://larouchein2004.net/images/pamphl … cos3sm.jpg

So you might ask what coming down that there so afraid of?

Well, the worldwide derivatives market coming down which has a value some where in the neighborhood of 300 to 400 trillion dollars, the three big bank of America and Wall Street between them have about 40 trillion dollars of worthless paper and the housing bubble that financed the Wall Street stock market rise is also collapsing and even the Federal Reserve System is bankrupt too and the money that Alan Greenspan can create is inflating out of existence and can’t be stop either. So now we come down to the question of weather we save the people or we save this bankrupt system or this worthless papers? FDR decided to save the people and let those loan shark, Wall Street, Big bank derivatives take the financial hit instead and there not very happy, because he made that choice and they have never forgiven him to this day even and many of the article that you read in the news paper either there direct impute or flavor on what FDR did in the thirties and forties and it not very favorable either.

That why I get into so many debate with other people that have been reading Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine and main line news papers and magazines that are pushing there view point of these financial people who are still pissed off at Roosevelt and want to make sure that his view point never see the light of day again. Most people that do argue with me, that there primary source or where it originated.

Credit can be used for one of two purposes:

1. The way credit being used right now. To generate worthless paper, create debt so you can get money from the physical economy and accumulate wealth to a small number of individuals. You setup financial houses credit deficit for recycling wealth, but not creating real wealth. This system will eventually destroy itself and has to destroy itself, because it will eat itself up and destroy itself. It actually consumes the wealth from the physical economy and leave less for everybody to live on until the system collapses under it own weight.
2. The other way to use credit is aimed at the physical for the purpose of building up infrastructure and generating wealth that we need to make society productive function. Since we are deliberately building rail road, power plants, subway, new farm equipment, new factories with hirer more productive machines with the same amount of man hours to produce good and service. We are deliberately increasing the wealth that can be created to include more people in the benefits of what we are doing. I have already mentioned that Kennedy had a two or three million Americans go back to work as a result of the Mission project. Compare that to George Bush three million jobs being lost and losing over two million manufacturing jobs. Not only that, but the United States actually made money going to the moon and it was actually a profitable venture. For every dollar that the United States invested in the moon mission they got fourteen dollars back in spin off in the private sector of new products, improved productivity, etc. If the U.S. Federal Government go back to an FDR policy with Treasury Department generating the credit and use a Kennedy type space program, the United State can build infrastructural project both down here and in space all day and make money doing all day doing be just directing the resources to do that.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-09-14 10:44:02

Giving the Treasury Department was that FDR generated the funds for his work projects that saved America from economic collapse.
??? FDR did not prevent a collapse of the US economy, it had already collapsed before FDR was even elected. The question is whether or not FDR's policies helped or hindered recovery. Most free-market economists think that they hindered recovery. Certainly the recovery was very slow. Recovery from most previous crashes occurred within 2-3 years but in the Great Depression it was uncertain whether or not recovery had occurred even 10 years later.

We were already in a depression when FDR took over as President and the U.S. economy had already collapsed.

But, I admit that the first year or two were a little slow going on a recovery.

But, as to whether there was a recovery coming or not, both Hoover and Wilson were trumpeting that the free markets would cause the economy to turn around when the Great Depression. They were also lying about the unemployment figure to make it out as being as bad as it was. Which is basically the same thing that George Bush is doing today. The Great Depression got so bad, that if soon something didn't happen, American people would have been in revolt against the U.S. Government. Thousand of homeless American decided on Washington in a tent city outside the White House with a sigh in the park that read: "HOOVERVILE". Things were bad with no sign of a recovery on the horizon and those liars in the Hoover Administration claiming that the recovery around the corner. Those free-market economists are either liars or there ignorant or both liars and ignorant. The fact of the matter is, there was no recovery coming and nor could there have been a recovery coming without FDR impute at a critical time in our history.

Larry,

C M Edwards · 2004-09-14 14:44:36

So, male chauvinism is the answer to female chauvinism? :sleep: Not very original.
I don't get this.

Explaining this reaction to your earlier statements would take us off on an unnecessary tangent, Gennaro. So, I'll just stay on topic and agree to disagree about which traditional Japanese gender role is more "deluded."

Gender roles play an important economic role, particularly when times get as hard as Scott Beach and others fear they will, because they determine how a family's resources are allocated. The traditional "working husband with housewife" model is at its heart an allocation of labor, not privileges, and who gets what privileges is (economically) irrelevant so long as the arrangement meets the demands for labor. Modern society's contempt for gender roles of any type does have a cost in loss of available labor for the family. While a few lost man-hours of labor may not be a problem in good economic conditions, it can make all the difference in the world when things get tight.

A return to traditional gender roles (actually, traditional allocations of labor) will make more man-hours of labor available for a family than it's usually given credit for. A lot of traditional gender roles from various cultures are geared toward efficiency, not gender.

Both spouses spending all of their time working jobs outside the home and leaving their kids in daycare full time (but not hiring a maid) is not typically the most efficient use of a family's labor. Almost any other allocation of labor is more efficient than both spouses working full time, allotting no chores to their children and not contracting out for services. The deeper the economy goes into the toilet, the rarer it will get.

Efficiency is more important than tradition in hard times. But tradition can often point the way.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-02 23:02:48

Whether Bush is aware or not that he is heading towards an economical crash, we will only find that out after it gets to that point. But the tax cut is supposed to help the little people, but it also does so to all the companies with a large working capital which should provide income for the country's economy. And so instead of helping the country it mostly helps the already rich ones.

Repent! Repent! The end is Nigh!
Economies all have their ups and downs, no matter who's in power. Tax cuts help the little people by freeing up capital to the private sector so they can create new jobs with their investments. The smaller a government is compared to the overall economy, the faster will the economy grow. Increasing taxes and expanding government is not a means to grow the economy of a nation. The fastest growing countries are the ones with low taxes.

"Robin Hood" economics simply doesn't work, it redistributes what the other guy has, but it also discourages him from investing as he knows the government isn't going to let him keep what he as saved and realized from his investments. Government taxation is simply a means one can use to "steal" from other people if used improperly. Some things need to be taken care of, a safety net might also be desirable, but that safety net should be kept within the bounds of what is affordable to the rest of society without resort to excessive taxation. If a program can't be afforded, it must be scaled back. Your not going to improve the quality of life in the country if you simply take from the rich and give to the poor.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-09-13 20:07:05

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#27 2004-09-13 20:25:15

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#28 2004-09-13 21:08:57

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#29 2004-09-13 22:26:03

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#30 2004-09-14 06:07:31

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#31 2004-09-14 06:15:41

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#32 2004-09-14 06:26:23

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#33 2004-09-14 07:02:38

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#34 2004-09-14 07:20:47

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#35 2004-09-14 07:33:17

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#36 2004-09-14 07:45:28

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#37 2004-09-14 07:58:57

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#38 2004-09-14 08:02:11

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#39 2004-09-14 09:22:43

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#40 2004-09-14 09:27:58

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#41 2004-09-14 10:12:12

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#42 2004-09-14 10:44:02

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#43 2004-09-14 14:44:36

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

#44 2007-10-02 23:02:48

Re: A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential

Board footer