Has Anyone Else Read “Atlas Shrugged?”

You're having a bad day, pal. Wrong again. 55 on the 14th.

 

Your points are irrelevant and wrong. You put numbers forth, as did I. 1878 thru 1882 was a period of four years of growth of GDP, never equalled to in American history, fueled by expansion and sound monetary policy. The period you highlighted was based on a lead up to war, which resulted in the untold suffering and death of millions of people, militarism, war profiteering, and a epic failure to learn at the lessons of the prior world war.
Thus, not a great time for Humanity, even if the numbers suggested great growth.

 

I'll type really slowly ...

One year growth rates, versus a 5-year period. In any 5-year period, it's quite possible that you could be flat, even with one banner year, if the other 4 are contracting.

Now if you have ..

1878 -- ??%
1879 -- ??%
1880 -- ??%
1881 -- ??%
1882 -- ??%

... then we can compare and see if any of those years were higher than others of the top 5.

Cool?

 

I must have misunderstood your previous statement then. I thought you said that you gave Summa its name.

 

I did. And while I'm loathe to advise you on how to know stuff, when I don't and am curious, I ask. Less folly assuming stuff.

Now then, the Summa BVBA entity in Gistel (pronounced "histell.") in the Dutch/Flemish north Belgium. It began as a division of Bausch and Lomb making recorders. Then a now defunct entity in Austin Texas (Summagraphics) acquired it and got them making vinyl-cutting plotters. Summagraphics was acquired by CalComp who named the Belgian division, CalComp Display Products. Later a company in Seattle, where I was VP, acquired it, and at my urging we renamed it and the Seattle entity "Summa."

Anything else you'd like to know, since when I wrote the company history for the Web site, I didn't go into the many minutia and wished the Summa entity to accrue a sense of long-standing history, which it has today? In fact, I left Summa in 2008, and I doubt much has been added to the history since then, as it appears they revise their Web site periodically, but retain most of the copy I wrote, coming from a Marketing background.

See how easy that is? Ask and ye shall receive.

 

1878 -- 8.37
1879 -- 9.35
1880 -- 10.36
1881 -- 11.62
1882 -- 12.21

And yet, these numbers as I said are based on a sustained period of economic growth outside of war time, and massive government spending, as I pointed out. What is it about these numbers and that you do not understand?

 

Meanwhile, as you'll see, GDP growth in the US since 1870 has had a pretty consistent upward trend line, in close parallel to consumer spending. But the period of most dramatic upward growth, is indeed the New Deal era / FDR Admins ...

 

What's your source of those percentages? Using 1990 international Geary-Khamis dollars, it's this:

1878 | 2780 | 1.75%
1879 | 2829 | 1.76%
1880 | 2880 | 1.80%
1881 | 2921 | 1.42%
1882 | 2963 | 1.43%

...

1933 | 4777 | -2.66%
1934 | 5114 | 7.05%
1935 | 5467 | 6.90%
1936 | 6204 | 13.48%
1937 | 6430 | 3.64%
1938 | 6126 | -4.72%
1939 | 6561 | 7.10%
1940 | 7010 | 6.84%
1941 | 8206 | 17.06%
1942 | 9741 | 18.70%
1943 | 11518 | 18.24%
1944 | 12333 | 7.07%
1945 | 11709 | -5.05%

 

More fun facts showing it anything but an extraordinary period, comparatively:

Average Decadal Real Per Capita Growth Rates
Average Growth Rate 1871–1880: 1.64%
Average Growth Rate 1881–1890: 1.65%
Average Growth Rate 1891–1900: 2.04%
Average Growth Rate 1901–1910: 2.13%
Average Growth Rate 1911–1920: 1.28%
Average Growth Rate 1921–1930: 1.27%
Average Growth Rate 1931–1940: 1.54%
Average Growth Rate 1941–1950: 3.87%
Average Growth Rate 1951–1960: 1.75%
Average Growth Rate 1961–1970: 2.88%
Average Growth Rate 1971–1980: 2.16%
Average Growth Rate 1981–1990: 2.26%
Average Growth Rate 1991–2000: 1.94%

Special Averages
Average Growth Rate 1871–1900: 1.78%
Average Growth Rate 1871–1914: 1.63%
Average Growth Rate 1873–1879: 1.64%
Average Growth Rate 1879 to 1896: 1.36%
Roaring 20s, Average Growth Rate 1920–1929: 2.04%
Recovery from Depression 1934–1940: 5.75%
Average Growth Rate 1948–1973: 2.30%.

 

So actually someone else back in the 70s came up with the name Summa. Interesting.

 

Many companies are named Summa, including the tool company Howard Hughes inherited from his father. But no, Summa, Inc. Summa BVBA, in the vinyl cutter and wide format outdoor durable printing industry, and its other holdings came by that name, at my urging, in 1999, which a search of the department of corporations in WA state will bear out as true. The logo was, at my direction, derived of the Summagraphics logo, separating the merge "mm" device in the Summagraphics logo:



Also, I preferred a different Helvetic-like font, Swiss921 BT, extended and italicized in a manual way making the logotype uniquely Summa (Inc. Seattle WA)

- - - Updated - - -

As an aside, and why Summa is popular in naming many companies and products is its meaning in Latin. The pinnacle, as in adding up to the total sum. Ergo summa-cum-laude.

 

Oh come on now, even you knew where are competitors were then, how much money we made when lend lease became buy sell etc... You wont pull that one off, good try though.

When is the longest stablest period of growth in our country? Before Keynes was popped out. lol.. Imagine if we have free trade as well during the Gilded Age. Big growth!

 

Seems you and Bluespade are drinking the same koolaid. Big growth? Okie doke. What was it, and can you source your figures?

 

Spend no time on him. You are better off talking politics with your shoe.

- - - Updated - - -

Source: an understanding of history. lol... KNow I am just being a jerk, here is a google result to sum it up:
http://www.shmoop.com/gilded-age/economy.html

I have a gdp per capita and PPP chart too somewhere but I cant find it. Hard to get data from then online these days....Will let you know if I find it. Anyway this all gets murky, best to explain policy by policy how all of current socialism is a big failure. If you can name any policy you think is good I would love to hear it. You and I know stats tell one story but have many authors.

 

Libertarian bloggers do not actually help people in gaining an understanding of history, but instead produce what I affectionately call, Purina Retard Chow.

Now then, growth, by year, adjusted to real dollars. (economists prefer Geary-Khamis dollars, but go with what you prefer) Whadaya got?

 

You are going to have to find a chart in the mean time. I searched for a bit and couldnt get one. I have it another post of mine I think....I have to get back to some work now though the team just got back in.

Didnt realize it was a blog, I was just being a jerk and sent you back the first google result for "economy in guilded age"

When I said "Spend no time on him" I was referring to Jeff9k by the way, wouldn't want to offend the wrong person.

 

I already posted one, from the Harvard Business School. Kinda to biz what the Mayo is to doctorin' humans. Looky up thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahh; what the heck. Here it is again:

 

That is fine, you win all arguments up until now. I lose all "such people were responsible for this, such people responsible for that". Totally, utterly lose.

Now, what social policy do you like? I have been more then accommodating, I want to hear the ones you like.

 

Yeah; tough to find, since, golly, reporting back in the day was not what it is today. The Con says, reported to the People from time to time. So that's varied over time and not quite so spot on as we have in the last 100 or so years.

Libertarian bloggers know this too, and can thus pull huge numbers from their poop-shoots, conveniently rounded (tip: real economics tends to get to the decimal level) which the retards eat up like chow time for dogs in kennels.

See how it works?

 

Hour maximums and wage minimums, scaled to raise consumption to a level sufficient to drive us to near full employment. And tax policy sufficient to reach the surpluses needed to pay down the national debt.

Thanks for asking.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1878_1882&chart=H0-total

 

That's spending, parsed many ways, i.e. percent of GDP.

Try again. What we're looking for is a source on your percentage GDP growth claims, 1878 thru 1882.

 

Are you stupid, insane, incredibly dishonest, on drugs, or drunk?

And why are you calling me "Junior?" You are junior to everyone here, from a knowledge standpoint.

 

Keynes wasn't born until 1883. Just in case we are comparing periods when Keynesianism and laissez-faire were both in play.

 

Booms that rely on policies that result in Great Depressions aren't valid.