Who best addresses unemployment.

[whell]

The party of the working class did not do the unemployed any favors during the 1930's. Of course this assumes that the government can have a positive impact on capital utilization and job creation, which is pretty debatable IMHO.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

The party of the working class did not do the unemployed any favors during the 1930's. Of course this assumes that the government can have a positive impact on capital utilization and job creation, which is pretty debatable IMHO.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

One might think that the decline in investment was as much related to the fortunes that were lost in the crash during the Hoover years, and the resultant doubt in the stability of the markets as a place for investing capital. The good prof. seems to be making a result-oriented assumption about the causes of investor reluctance, blaming it on the Government programs that were designed to relieve the effects of the crumbled economy, rather than the creation of the economic circumstances that lead to the crash.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

One might think that the decline in investment was as much related to the fortunes that were lost in the crash during the Hoover years, and the resultant doubt in the stability of the markets as a place for investing capital. The good prof. seems to be making a result-oriented assumption about the causes of investor reluctance, blaming it on the Government programs that were designed to relieve the effects of the crumbled economy, rather than the creation of the economic circumstances that lead to the crash.

Regards,

D-Ray

Rather, I think the question being asked is: Was the medicine worse than the disease? Frankly, I think we're seeing much the same thing today. Business owners that I speak to are as much worried about what the government might do as they are planning and executing their business plan.

Just one case in point - the lack of certainly that is being created by the lack of clarity about whether or not the "Bush tax cuts" will be allowed to expire. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with continuing the status quo, the president's advisers are begging him to let them expire. At the same time, the President and key Democrats are sending mixed signals about whether or not they will expire, or possibly be modified in some manner. This is creating a level of paralysis in the marketplace.

Uncertainty stalls investment, which stalls forward progress in the economy. I see this nearly every day. Few of my clients are actually looking at adding to staff, and if an employee leaves, they think long and hard about replacing them. Thus, employment levels / company payrolls continue to stagnate.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Rather, I think the question being asked is: Was the medicine worse than the disease? Frankly, I think we're seeing much the same thing today. Business owners that I speak to are as much worried about what the government might do as they are planning and executing their business plan.

Just one case in point - the lack of certainly that is being created by the lack of clarity about whether or not the "Bush tax cuts" will be allowed to expire. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with continuing the status quo, the president's advisers are begging him to let them expire. At the same time, the President and key Democrats are sending mixed signals about whether or not they will expire, or possibly be modified in some manner. This is creating a level of paralysis in the marketplace.

.

I often hear and read things like this. All my years have taught me that as with numbers a case can be put forward to rationalize any agenda.
In other words, more hooey.

Why not just assume the law will be followed and this gift to the rich will expire as is long overdue?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I often hear and read things like this. All my years have taught me that as with numbers a case can be put forward to rationalize any agenda.
In other words, more hooey.

Why not just assume the law will be followed and this gift to the rich will expire as is long overdue?

As easy and gratifying as it may be, I'm not sure it's fully rational to criticize business for sitting on its hands given all the uncertainties in the marketplace and the political arena.

In a micro sense, if you had $10,000 cash under your mattress, is today the right time to put it in the American stock market? Damned if I know, but I'd be pretty nervous about doing so.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I often hear and read things like this. All my years have taught me that as with numbers a case can be put forward to rationalize any agenda.
In other words, more hooey.

Why not just assume the law will be followed and this gift to the rich will expire as is long overdue?

You must have heard - "Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure."

I have to wonder about those Masters of the Universe up at Wall Street. Everybody panicked because housing sales dropped, what in hell did they expect?

First the tax break moved a lot of buyers to June that might have been planning on waiting. Plus the tax break moved big ticket item sales as well, new house new appliances needed.

CEOs are sitting on a hoard of cash because they feel uncertainty, do they expect potential home buyers to act and differently? Even if you have a job, are you really sure it will be there next month, so you are supposed to rush right out and buy a home.

Whoever the colossal jackass who dreamt up quarterly reporting should have been taken back of the barn and soundly beaten.

Dumpkoffs abound.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

The party of the working class did not do the unemployed any favors during the 1930's. Of course this assumes that the government can have a positive impact on capital utilization and job creation, which is pretty debatable IMHO.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

When did Roosevelt take office? What happened to the employment rate subsequently? Same for GDP.

Then as now, Conservatives blame Democratic policies for creating hesitancy in the investor class. It's more likely in my view that investors were simply hesitant to "get back on the horse" that had bucked them off so rudely in 1929. Also, it's important to remember that, then as now, the policies of successive Republican administrations had sown the seeds of disaster for the economy but, then as now, Republicans did their damnedest to obstruct the Roosevelt Administrations efforts for reform and recovery through the new deal. Had it not been for that, Roosevelt's policies would have been implemented sooner and the recovery would have proceeded more rapidly.

But I like the big letters. They're swell!

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

When did Roosevelt take office? What happened to the employment rate subsequently? Same for GDP.

1933. It was reduced, but stayed on the in the 15% range until 1940, well above the historical average of approximately 6%.

Here's the key paragraph relative to GDP:

"The rise in GDP after 1933 was not sufficient to drop the unemployment rate from depression levels because while the GDP was growing the labor force also was growing. Furthermore increases in productivity meant that for the same level of GDP there were fewer jobs. In order to bring down the unemployment rate the rate of growth of GDP has to be greater than the sum of the growth rates of productivity and the labor force. Thus if there is a period in which the rate of growth of GDP is less than the sum of the rates of growth of the labor force and labor productivity then there is a near-permanent rise in the unemployment rate. Only if there is some extraordinary increase in aggregate demand will the accumulated pool of unemployment be absorbed."

We're seeing much the same today. Business owners, due to uncertainty, are increasing their productivity. The upward summer blip in the stock market can likely be explained due to the fact that the balance sheets and productivity stats from many publicly traded companies improved versus last year. Improving productivity while lowering expenses - with payroll as the number one controllable expense item for any company - will provide a rosy financial picture to Wall Street, but its not indicative of growth.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Then as now, Conservatives blame Democratic policies for creating hesitancy in the investor class. It's more likely in my view that investors were simply hesitant to "get back on the horse" that had bucked them off so rudely in 1929. Also, it's important to remember that, then as now, the policies of successive Republican administrations had sown the seeds of disaster for the economy but, then as now, Republicans did their damnedest to obstruct the Roosevelt Administrations efforts for reform and recovery through the new deal. Had it not been for that, Roosevelt's policies would have been implemented sooner and the recovery would have proceeded more rapidly.

John

Frankly, I can't really tell the difference between Rupublicans and Democrats anymore. The moniker that some use - "Republicrats" to me seems pretty appropriate.

As far as blaming the Republicans for stalling Roosevelt, this is specious, IMHO. Then as now, particularly for "New Deal II", the President had opposition to key legislation from within his own party. The Democratic party held the majority in Congress at that time, as well as holding the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933-69. Republicans were certainly a source of opposition during that time, but Roosevelt was also not shy about campaigning against anti-New Deal Democrats.