The Ecomony will not Recover until the Government Spends MORE Money!!

Great answer. i have no expertise in the matter and was writing spontaneously at the library with limited time.(Check some of the threads I've started for what I come up with after thinking.)
I don't know what the soldiers were paid but if it was the same as a factory with no need to buy a car, bus fare, clothes, food or cough medicine someone like me would save about 80% and lend some to associates for interest and future favors.
S0 you're 79. That means you have many case histories from personal memory. How much would the Social Security be for a 65-year-old man retiring in 1946? surely it was more than he somehow managed to live on in 1933, right?
What year did you get your MBA? If it was around 1960 we weren't far enough from the era to compare it to different experiences. We did not yet have Lyndon Johnson's great society program. japan was not yet a technological equal. China was not yet an economic threat. The Cold War was fueling the economy almost as much as the hot ones.
Yes, I know Eisenhower's intentions were military but they ultimately help everyone forever. Contrast that with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which helped construction workers get an extra temp job and many Congressmen get reelected. I want every three-lane highway to be extended to a four-lane highway. That will help everyone forever and boost the economy. More bus routes would also help invigorate the economy in some remote and rural areas.
I also wanted to ask you about economic patterns in other countries that are mostly isolated and don't have to meddle with foreign wars so often. In other words,if most nationals buy home-produced goods and the government spends most money internally so perhaps $10 billion gets circulated annually with limited fluctuation, does the Keynesian model make more or less sense?
Recently I tried to find the federal budget from the 1790s. I'd like to know how the government got money with no income tax,property tax or other extortion?

 

A 1 lt officer, made less than 1/4th of what he made before the war. With no need to buy a car, bus fare, clothes, food or cough medicine someone like me would save about 80% and lend some to associates for interest and future favors. [/quote]Nope, it was a tough time for families of soldiers.

My grandmother go $50 a month part of which was state old age pension.

Nope! My grandfather surveyed the levy from the Arkansas line to Vidalia, La during the depression and made over $100 a month and allowances for being away from home.

A university!

I was a sales man in 1960 with US Rubber Co. UNIROYAL. I was making about $600 a month. I got drafted in 1961 and my pay went down to $78 a month living in a barracks and eating in the mess hall. It was one hell of a culture shock.

Nope! The cold war did not increase our production and government spending by more than about 10% of wartime mobilization.

Government money comes out of the economy and what they spend back in the economy is less than they take out. (over head and foreign spending and aid.)

Mass transportation works in heavily populated densely settled areas. The US is to spread out to justify the expense of a national transportation system. Have you tried Amtrak lately? It costs more to travel on a train, wastes days of time, and is not nearly as comfortable as a plane.

The Keynesian model does not do much for an economy. The meddling does as much harm as it does good for some poor people.

Taxes early on were tariffs, duties, property tax, road tolls and the like. Google the history of tax in the US. There is lots of stuff out there.

 

ok, let's get simple. Was the salary of a private more or less than the average wage of an unskilled laborer in a non-union factory in 1941,1951,1961, etc?
I have only a few clues.
The guy on MASH told Major Houlihan he would be earning less in private practice than in the military .
john Anderson in 1980said his first priority as President would be to raise military salaries.
My cousin said he saved all his combat pay from Iraq and Afghanistan and had enough to buy a house.
Does a soldier have to spend money on any personal items?
Unemployment was high during the depression, but what percentage of persons actually were jobless at some point between 1929 and 1939? That is to say, if your company didn't go out of business were you probably still there 10 years later and actually better off even at the same salary because prices went down. I think the same people lost several jobs during those years, especially like my grandfather who often needed the WPA. I've been trying to piece together my mother's memories recently and it appears he was still changing jobs frequently in his 50s due to temper problems. The family had been in the commercial fishing business for over 150 years. If he hadn't chosen to be a landlubber would he have stayed employed continually? His father-in-law was a captain at least through the 1930s.
When Keynes was developing his theories, what did history offer on the subject? That is to say, which countries prior to 1912 tried to meddle with their economies in peacetime just to make citizens richer?
what did he think about Andrew Jackson's attack on the US banking system?
If World War II had never happened, what would the economy of Germany have been like through the 1950s,and can their economic methods be duplicated today in a nice country?

 

Less!

The writer of that line was either stupid or he was basically lazy and knew he was not sufficiently competent to compete in the real world. If TV is the source of your information we should stop right now and it proves your lack of personal judgement.

I agree he should. But we were talking about WWII era Military pay.

If he was in combat area for 10 years he may have saved a good down payment.

Absolutely!

I suggest you research those areas as they do not interest me. I concern myself with what I want to know about today's economy.

That does not interest me in the least. What ifs are for dreamers, writers and moralists.

 

The Ecomony will not Recover until the Government Spends MORE Money!!

is like saying a heroin addict wont recover unless he is given more heroin. yes more heroin might make him feel better and keeps him from getting sick, but it sure wont cure him from being an addict

when the government pumps money into an economy that economy becomes addicted to that money and the government has to continue to pump the same amount and more to continue the same effect. And no government can afford to continue to do that

 

Don't forget, the money the government "pumps" into the economy is taken from the economy by taxation or borrowing, and when re-injected back into the economy it is less all overhead and money spent off shore by the government. All it is is an inefficient attempt at redistribution of wealth.

 

(fiscal years)
Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total Government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

Bush
Spending increase, 2001-2005: +32.7%
Total Government employment, 2001-2005: +603,000

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
Total Government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

How has cutting spending instead of increasing it and terminating 700,000 jobs instead of creating 600,000 new ones helped the economy again?

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget, when the US government taxes the uber rich it is taking money that is otherwise not spent, increasing spending, demand, production, hiring, and jobs in the economy, and decreasing the number who are dependent on the Govt.

 

The Fed's latest Flow of Funds report showed that U.S. nonfinancial companies held $1.7 trillion in liquid assets at the end of March. But newly released IRS figures show that in 2009 these companies held $4.8 trillion in liquid assets, which equals $5.1 trillion in today's dollars, triple the Fed figure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-column-dcjohnston-idlecash-idUSBRE86F0GK20120716

 

Trying to grow the economy by taking money out by taxes and putting back in it is like having a bucket half full of water with a hole in the bottom, and you want to fill it to the top but the only water you put in it is what you collect leaking from the hole

 

you must think the rich buries their money in jars in the back yard or stuff their mattress with it The rich put there money back into the economy through investments
what has happened is the rich haven't been making investments in job creating ventures because it is to high of a risk caused by Obama business unfriendly rules regulations and Obama care. so they have been investing in other ventures that doesn't have those risk like commodities futures and bonds

 

Cutting spending to protect tax cuts for the richest is like having a lakeful of water available for use but insisting on using a bucket with a hole in it.

 

Why would you think I think that?

Super rich hold $32 trillion in offshore havens
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/22/us-offshore-wealth-idUSBRE86L03U20120722

You mean we ran up trillions in debt to give the so-called "job creators" money to create jobs, and instead they are just hording it in their offshore accounts?

WHO CAME UP WITH THAT DUMB (*)(*)(*)(*)ING IDEA?

 

but of coarse you don't ask why the rich is putting money in off shore accounts
that is the difference between the right and the left the right wants to give people an incentive to act in ways to help the economy. the left just wants to punish people to force them to do what they want them to do

 

Which still does nothing but redistribute wealth from the haves to the have nots. I do agree we need to help those who are truly needy, but taking money from a wealthy persons savings account to throw at some mythical Keynesian theory not only does not do much to expand the economy, it is treating those who worked the hardest and the smartest like red headed step children.

In addition, over any length of time when the haves and the have nots are compared, the haves will still be the wealthiest and the have nots (as in subsidized persons other than the truly needy) will still be the least wealthy. Historically Keynesianism is not a very successful way to improve the economy.

 

Who the hell cares?

That is the difference between the right and the left. The left wants to give people who will act a way to help the economy. The right just wants the 1% to have more to stick in their offshore accounts.

Because for heaven's sake, the richest 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from just 30 years ago, just isn't enough for them, is it?

 

The have nots spend the money. the haves proportionately don't.

We need more spending. Not more trillions sitting in offshore accounts or wherever they hoard it.

Spending creates demand, which creates production, which creates jobs, and less people dependent on Govt. It's not mythical.

We did better when we didn't treat the middle class like the red headed step children.

So what?

Do you mean except for the WWII example you always use?

Or do you mean except for Reagan and Bush and the way spending was dramatically increased when they were president?

 

Do you think that is what Obama is doing? I notice from one of your posts that the "idle money" you keep harping on is 4.8 trillion less than it was when Obama took over. So obviously the money is being spent.

 

Your own posts tell us that is not the case.

Most money in off shore accounts was made off shore and won't repatriate so long as taxes on that money is confiscatory.

CONSUMER SPENDING does,, yes. Government spending to a much lower point and based on the CBO government spending to create just a few jobs is way over touted.

The middle class is doing quite well historically when we compare the growth of all income groups.

Buttons, snaps are out of style.

I used the WWII example to show you that government spending alone does not stimulate the economy as much as Keynesians think it will.

Spending increased under Reagan and Bush, but in inflation adjusted $$$s the actual wealth spent under Obama is higher.

 

Where did you notice that?

Of course some money is being spent, or else the economy would die.

But we aren't seeing the robust spending that have driven other recoveries in the past.

Which should be no surprise given we've gutted the middle class with trickle down and we have a government doing austerity.

 

They do not.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Then don't let them have it in have it in the first place.

The 1% now have about 40% of the nation's wealth compared to 20% 30 years ago. You're claiming they made most of that offshore?

Prove it.

Govt spending creates jobs and demand too. Compared to money sitting idle in 1%er accounts, which is doing squat.

30 years ago the middle class got 65% of the nation's income. Now it gets 50%. Only a 1% apologist would say that is doing quite well.

I figured that was about the totality of the relevance of your assertion.

Bizarre example to use given how Govt spending skyrocketed then like never before or since.

Govt spending has decreased over the past four years. Unprecedented in modern history. Compared to GDP, Govt spending has dropped faster than any time in since WWII. Under your theory, since Govt spending is so wasteful, the economy should be booming and employment skyrocketing. But it's not. The economy is anemic and this has been the slowest recovery in modern history.

So much for your theory.

 

Who ever thought it would be a good idea to tax money made overseas in overseas market in a confiscatory manner.

I have never claimed that the rich made most of their money overseas. Your own posts shows that the "idle money" you are do concerned about has gone down from $5.1 trillion in today's dollars, to than $1.7 trillion.

 

Whoever thought it was a good idea to run up trillions of debt so the "job creators" could take the nation's wealth and horde it when the economy is dying for spending?

 

You have made some excellent points in your post, but what about the national debt that keeps on rising at alarming rate? Your formula is to keep on spending more and more money into the system.

I don't really see anything those guys in Washington DC are doing to deal with debt.

 

Who are you addressing this to? If you click the "reply with quote" the post you are responding to will be included with your posts so folks will know what you are referring to.

But to address your post, the debt is still rising, but not nearly the rate it was. In 2009 the debt increased 19%, almost 2 trillion dollars. Last year the debt increase less than $700 billion, or 4.18%. It base rose as a percentage of GDP.

So IMO it is not now rising at an alarming rate. We should continue to increase revenues with a tax increase and limit spending relative to GDP, but we don't need to continue to punish ourselves with the austerity we've had over the past four years.

 

The Fed's latest Flow of Funds report showed that U.S. nonfinancial companies held $1.7 trillion in liquid assets at the end of March. But newly released IRS figures show that in 2009 these companies held $4.8 trillion in liquid assets, which equals $5.1 trillion in today's dollars, triple the Fed figure. http://www.politicalforum.com/showth...264376&page=69

No, that isn't showing the figure went down. As the article explains, those are two different figures, one from the Fed, the other from the IRS:

Why the huge gap?

The Fed gets its data from the IRS, but only measures the flow of funds in the domestic economy. The IRS reports the worldwide holdings of U.S. companies, which I think is the more revealing measure.