The Great Depression would have eventually corrected itself even

that's what happened though

You're right, but that takes too long, and meanwhile 25% of people are unemployed and pissed at the government. So you have to take some sort of action. The depression didn't really end until WW2.

File: c95dbe0d3abb882b7b22b73254815c98.jpg (43KB, 700x540px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 700x540px

Big government and regulations has always been a hindrance.

>>2969640
>muh 25% unemployed

No one cares about them.

Just lock them up in for-profit prisons and you can use them for slave labour to increase business profits and investment.

>>2969647

This.

Social Security and FDIC was a mistake.

>>2969662
>>2969653
How much should poor/unfortunate people be punished for being poor and unfortunate?

>>2969735
Until they stop being poor and unfortunate.

Modern neoliberal economics is simply another manifestation of the inherent tendency towards rent-seeking within complex societies

Prove me wrong.

>>2969780
>le profits are bad

Communism has led to economic ruin and the deaths of millions of people in Soviet Russia and China causing both countries to eventually abandon it for free market capitalist economies.

Prove me wrong, you Marxist scum.

>>2969801
>the only options are neoliberalism and communism

You see, any extractive social institution requires an ideology to legitimize it.

Monarchs required the divine right of kings, the robber barons have the "free market"

Of course, a market is inextricably connected with the government that oversees it, and any billionaire that credits their success to a fair, equal system will typically also have an army of lobbyists, tax attorneys, and PR consultants to keep give them an edge over the proles.

>>2969756
Why should punishment in such cases be limitless?

>>2969819

Because the world is unfair and not everyone can be rich.

>>2969816

>how to make excuses if you are poor: the post

>>2969829
Punishment =/ the only alternative to absolute equality.

File: Predicted likelihood of government policy.png (91KB, 426x800px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 426x800px

>>2969850
An ideology does not function by citing evidence, it functions by framing questions of fact as a matter of identity.

As long as some vile "other" can be identified as the opponent of the system, and a vague promise of social advancement given to loyalists, a system can maintain a cadre of collaborators, feverishly working against their own interests.

Sure, there may be 800,000,000,000 dollars worth of tax evasion a year in the US, mostly by the ultra-rich and multinational corporations, and sure there may be such a thick tangle of lobbyists and PR consultants around DC that the richest ZIP codes in the US are now Northern Virginia suburbs, but the average conservative has not been conditioned to fear such things. They have been conditioned to fear pot smoking Bernouts or sexually promiscuous welfare cheats.

As long as they think they're part of the system, they will defend it against perceived outsiders.

File: Average_Tariff_Rates_in_USA_(1821-2016).png (90KB, 1285x645px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1285x645px

>>2969631
No objections here, you are correct in your assessment that government intervention did indeed prolong the Great Depression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

>>2969631

Government intervention prolonged the Depression. Herbert Hoover did nothing wrong.

Too often I see people judging the New Deal entirely in terms of "Economic recovery" and decrying it as an abject failure because it didn't 'cure' the depression, but the New Deal was more than that. The New Deal was as much about social, political and economic reform just as much as it was about 'recovery'. Roosevelt wanted to change the entire conception of what the federal government's role was, and in large part he succeeded. He also succeeded in building a liberal coalition that would dominate the American political system for the next half century.

Roosevelt would be the first to admit he didn't know how to 'solve' the depression, but he wasn't afraid of trying novel programs to not only try and stimulate business, but to ameliorate the suffering for the millions of out of work Americans, who found themselves broke and jobless through no fault of their own. Roosevelt himself would be the first to admit that many of the programs of the New Deal didn't work exactly as he intended them, but for many Americans, the fact that he was trying whatever he could was reassuring.

I think what's important to recognize about Roosevelt and the New Deal was how moderate most of his proposals were in a time where radicalism was brewing and seeking extreme measures. Contrary to those who call Roosevelt a socialist, he did not nationalize any industry. He did not dismantle capitalism but in fact bolstered it and made it more accountable and equitable to the citizens of the country.

File: 1497460852205.jpg (64KB, 637x453px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 637x453px

Why do 90% humans lack compassion?
They are inherently made to kill, take resources and fuck.
I know that it is in our basic instincts, but isn't it wrong in 2017 to follow your basic instincts? Haven't we evolved to have a choice and ability to say no to them?

There is plenty to go round now if we all cooperate. How do we get it through their thick fucking skulls, besides making them feel the same pain that they inflict upon others? Literally no way to make them feel for another human.

>>2969871

>gives even more elaborate excuses about why he's poor and won't get off his fat ass and start a business like all the rich people did

>>2970039
Sociopaths will always exist and thrive, there is nothing you can do about it.

>>2970001
quality post

>>2970040
Not that poster, but I think you ought to find another board more suitable to your maturity level.

>>2969631
It did in every other country. And earlier.

>>2969631
But that's true.

Antifragility

>>2969662
Was bailing out Big Finance also a mistake?

>>2969988
>88
>Herbert Hoover did nothing wrong.

Go home Mr. Hoover.

>>2970001
So he used a crisis to extend the Federal Government's tentacles further into economic life?

>>2970130
I think that's a rather shallow ideologically tinted way of examining a complex issue.

>>2969631
Correct, it's largely due to the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff enacted by Hoover that the Great Depression evolved pass a short recession.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

>>2970048
I wasn't talking about sociopaths.
I was talking about common man in 1st world country.
Why hasn't he risen above his base urges and told them to fuck off?

>>2970133
A middle stance on an issue does not equal a nuanced stance on an issue.

>>2970150
And an ideologically charged stance is even less likely to be one.

There has never been an economic miracle that didn't involve state support.
From Germany to Italy to Japan, all have needed certain gov. programs to raise them up.
Yet, we do not see any such concrete effects when the gov goes uber-liberal all of a sudden.
And no, yammering about some vague, somewhere-in-the-19th-century America doesn't count.

>>2970153
Usually, but not if you are rational and informed.

If Bob shoots someone in the head, and I say "Hey guys, he's helping to support the firearm industry. And who really liked that guy he shot anyways?", I am not committing myself to a nuanced position. Nuance is the result of a survey of the whole field of facts about an issue, and this survey reveals where the weight lies.

>>2970169
Now we're back to my original statement >>2970133
Reducing the entirety of The New Deal and Roosevelt's administration to a flagrant expansion of the Federal Government without examining what actually changed and why is a shallow way to look at an important fluid period in history.

The TVA for instance brought power to millions of Americans living without it and would serve as a model for expanding the power grid to many rural areas across the country which has not only raised living standards, but providing additional opportunity and economic growth for people whose local communities were financially unequipped to embark on such projects themselves, but viewing it through the ideological lens that any expansion of the Federal Government is bad, you'd think that providing power to rural Americans was a terrible thing.

>>2970209
I do not mean to reduce the whole New Deal to that notion, but that is indeed where the weight lies. I don't think that any expansion of the Federal Government is always bad, though indeed most of the expansion that has taken place (and that can take place) is bad.

If you read Nassim Taleb, you would understand that interventionism is usually bad because it treats the economy as a machine rather than an ecology or organism, that centralization of decision making is unwise because it increases the range of impact of errors (there are other bad reasons found in Hayek), and that the burden of proof rests on the person intervening in a complex system, rather than the one defending the status quo, because intervening in a complex system can cause Black Swans events which are highly destructive.

>>2969653
Wouldn't it make more sense to offer them shitty jobs and pay them a tiny amount of money instead of dealing with the high financial and social cost of running a slave system?

>>2970252
Given we've been in this whole "slavery" business for millennia, no.

>>2970148
>Why hasn't he risen above his base urges and told them to fuck off?
There is no stake, so he won't.
Even a higher class(leftovers of nobility, third generation heirs, etc) and a medium class still has more repressed urges than the existing lower classes, who drink and do shit in a pretty hardcore and low way.


>>2970250
In one way: Yes
In another way: Generally anything that isn't the higher parts of the economy, is something that benefits from the expansion.
Power grid is something the non central economy benefits a lot from, because its possible to "only build a building" instead of building + generators. And it also reduces the needed scale, since it removes the need of several suppliers.

I think the logic of the used arguments in the post is fine, but the logic isn't applied to anything. So you are basically spouting shitty buzzwords fishing for feel good points.

>>2970344
Taleb's vocabulary doesn't have buzzwords.

>>2970376
That the source has good structure, doesn't mean you apply the source in a valid manner.
If you think Interventionism is bad, you need to take Taleb's arguments and apply them to New Deal. Otherwise you are just being a shitty person, and end up being a parrot.

>>2969640
Actually the depression ended in 1938 and came back after Roosevelt pulled back government spending. Then WW2, a government spending orgy, started and all was fixed. The End.

>>2969801
*loses job*
*blames cheap foreign labor*
*becomes a protectionist*

>>2970440
The New Deal falls apart because it was the result of centralized decision making, which can expand error. The main role of the Federal Government is to prevent Black Swans, namely by maintaining a military and enforcing environmental protections. The states need to be left to tinker with policy.

>>2970250
Why does the burden of proof rest on the person "intervening"? The economy isn't a single entity, individuals can engage in economic activity and not all of it is going to be a net-positive which kind of makes any sort of concern about the centralization of decision making moot. In the US, catastrophic economic collapses are almost always the fault of private sector businesses such as banks and trade organizations, their decisions have just as much, if not more impact than our governments, do you suggest we decentralize them (the loan market, traders, wtc) aswell?

>>2970474
>centralized decision making, which can expand error
how so? as opposed to random decision making?
>The states need to be left to tinker with policy.
The Great Depression and The Great Recession are both the result of economic bubbles created by loopholes in federal banking and finance law.

>>2970534
dude stock market crash lmao

>>2970534
>that dip in '37 when FDR tries going back to free market policies

>>2970130
No. He used mildly socialistic policies to save liberal democracy from being hijacked by radical political ideologues.

>>2970272
>Given we've been in this whole "slavery" business for millennia, no.

Ever notice how industrialized non-shitholes stopped doing it? It was for financial reasons first and moral reasons second.

>be OP
>read few memes and quotes of Austrians
>become economic and political expert
Except not really, you're a retard and Austrians and their offspring are retarded too.
Most of economists in general are retarded and narrow people. Very very few of them REALLY consider social impact of economics.
In ideal world under a simplified model, anything can work.
In real world, there is a need to compromise, for example in this case you get government intervening because pissed off impoverished people tend to wreck shit up and your old farts who write economic theories won't stop the masses.
Unrestrained capitalism is a self-defeating idea. Regulated capitalism has a record of working. Theories are theories. Marxism was one, look how it ended up. Except even fucking Marx understood that he doesn't know everything and that his ideas are perhaps flawed.
Libertarians, being sociopathic, have no such problems.

>>2970552
The purpose of Libertarianism isn't to provide a functional economic system, it's to create an ideological cover for the strong to prey on the weak.

>>2969978
But only 4% of the US economy was in trade in 1930? And the rate is lower than in 1776-1915?

Thousands of economists have disproven the negative effect of the tariff. Keep believing the meme though.

>>2970574
This.

>>2970544
1938*
FDR, like all liberals turned keynesians, believed in something called "fiscal balance". Once you are growing again, put the budget in surplus (lower debt to GDP ratio).

The New Deal wasn't just one giant policy with the same economic theory backing it. Many policies were contradictory in that they reined in public spending while others expanded it.

On the whole, FDR managed to work with competent economic planners of many backgrounds to recover the economy. He was no keynesian centralist in 1933, but by 1940 he was the closest this nation got to Stalin.

File: IMG_0906.gif (12KB, 620x410px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 620x410px

Having a job, whether it be economically efficient or not, brings social stability.

FDR saved us from a Hitler, Mussolini, or Communist because FSR and his allies understood that in the long-run we are all dead.

>>2970525
>how so? as opposed to random decision making?

As opposed to decentralized

>The Great Depression and The Great Recession are both the result of economic bubbles created by loopholes in federal banking and finance law.

Fair enough. Finance can have Black Swans. But trying to fix the economy through intervention, especially centralized intervention, is wrong.

File: Sklar Disaccumulation.gif (26KB, 677x983px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 677x983px

Well it depends on what was the cause of the depression. The typical monetarist narrative is total garbage, the stock market explosion in the 20s was the result of real massive productivity gains in industry. Business could keep increasing their output while lowering the need for employed labour.
This is worth reading:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110716112639/http://www.southerndomains.com/SouthernBanks/p5.htm

File: horse to car transition.png (154KB, 609x602px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 609x602px

>>2970675
I'll post some excerpts from this
>Electrification, Tractorization, and Motorization: Revisiting the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/JEI0021-3624480409

I argue that demand of farmers and manufacturers for increased tariff protection
in the late 1920s was not groundless, but rather the result of important structural
changes in the U.S. economy. A major general-purpose technology shock (Bresnahan
and Trajtenberg 1995; Helpman and Trajtenberg 1996) was electrification, the
adoption of which by manufacturing firms throughout the 1920s led to significant
excess supply/capacity in both manufacturing and agriculture. In manufacturing,
electrification resulted in widespread excess capacity as firms found it increasingly
difficult to find new outlets for their products (Bell 1940; Moulton 1935; Nourse and
Associates 1934; Tugwell 1927). Second, an important byproduct of electrification
was the increased availability of affordable prime movers in the form of tractors,
trucks, and automobiles. The ensuing tractorization of U.S. agriculture and
motorization (trucks and automobiles) of transportation wreaked havoc on the
agricultural sector as fossil fuels totally displaced hay and oats (carbohydrates) as the
prime movers of U.S. agriculture and transportation, reducing the overall demand by
10 to 15 percent (Bureau of the Census 1933).

>>2970148
Human beings are engineered for survival for them and theirs.

Gotta build community and kinship for others to care.

>>2970681
By 1928, following a decade of substantial investments in mass-production
techniques and in new motorized rolling stock (tractors, trucks, and automobiles), the
economy experienced widespread excess supply. Utah Senator Reed Smoot, chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee, Joseph A. Grundy, president of the Pennsylvania
Manufactures Association, and other high-ranking Republicans, responded with
another round of tariff hikes, aimed at further decreasing imports and increasing the
domestic market share. Analytically, this paper contributes by focusing on technology
shocks and their diffusion as a determinant of the demand for tariff protection. Until
now, only sectoral and macroeconomic causes have been examined analytically.


Examples of direct effects include the effects of the introduction of electric power on
conventionally defined labor productivity and overall output. An example of an
indirect effect consists of the effects of tractorization and motorization of
transportation (personal and commercial) on the market for agricultural produce.
Electrification and the resulting mass production made automobiles and tractors
affordable, with the result that, in a short period of time, motorized vehicles replaced
horses and mules, thus depressing feed markets and agricultural markets in general
(via the associated linkages).

...system, continuity, and speed
were byproducts of the electrification/automation of sequential production (Chandler
1973). Power was at the core of the mass production revolution.

The innovations at the Ford Motor Company’s Highland Park plant
transformed the U.S. automobile industry, and ultimately U.S. manufacturing. The
Ford Motor Company of the 1910s was a microcosm of the U.S. economy of the
1920s. Productivity and output increased, but employment remained relatively stable.

>>2970684
Chicago power magnate, Martin J. Insull, declared that “as a consequence of the
added power which invention has contributed to industry, the forty-five and one-half
million workers in the United States have achieved an output equivalent to from six-
hundred million to nine-hundred million workers before the power era” (Fisher 1930,
131). This translates into a 1,300 percent increase in productivity. Another power
America’s capacity to produce had increased, but
its ability to “take the products off of the market” had not, thus resulting in
widespread excess capacity. Something was amiss. To Ford and Filene, both successful
businessmen, the problem was the prevailing business ethos: more productive firms
systematically resisted wage increases and/or price decreases.

This theme defined the writings of Filene, Ford, and others: higher production
requires higher consumption and higher consumption requires higher wages and
lower prices. Specifically, the widespread application of electric power throughout the
U.S. economy violated Say’s law — the cornerstone of mainstream macroeconomics.
Ford and Filene — businessmen by profession — were adamant: Greater capacity does
not create greater income, and greater demand.

....The U.S. Bureau of the Census estimated that, in the
1920s, the tractorization of farming and the motorization of transportation decreased
the number of farm mules and horses by 6,000,000 and the number of city horses
and mules by 2,000,000 (Bureau of the Census 1933). Hence, in one decade, the
number of animals, for which feed had previously been grown, fell by 8,000,000... Technically, fossil fuels had replaced starches, sugars,
cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, found in animal feed, as the prime mover in U.S.
agriculture and transportation.

>>2970690

It stands to reason that these releases would have had major effects on U.S.
agriculture as fossil fuels replaced grasses and cereals. 8 Given the overall lack of
elasticity of the demand for agricultural products, it stands to reason that commodity
prices (wheat, cotton, corn, etc.) would have weakened considerably. Figure 7 shows
that the real price of hay, tame hay, and oats — three principal horse and mule feeds —
fell throughout the 1920s, reaching roughly 40 percent by 1929 (base year, 1909). 9

"the tractor has had a markedly positive economic impact. Horses and
mules, while providing farm power, ate up more than twenty percent of the
food they helped farmers grow. By replacing them with machines that
consumed much less expensive quantities of fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluid,
farmers were able to reduce their costs and pass these social savings along
to food buyers. More importantly, the millions of farm workers freed up by
the technology were able to contribute their labor elsewhere in the
economy, creating large economic benefits. According to a recent estimate
by the author, the US would have been almost ten percent poorer in 1955
in the absence of the farm tractor. Along with the revolution in yields
generated by the advances in biological and chemical research, the farm
tractor has helped make a significant contribution to economic growth in
the United States." (White 2000, 56)

>>2970692
Most agreed that widespread excess supply was a singular phenomenon, the
result of electrification and high-throughput, continuous-flow mass production.
Governments were at a loss to explain this paradox. Electrification held out the
promise of a better tomorrow. Output would increase as firms “electrified,” the spoils
of which would serve to revolutionize life in general (modernity). Yet, there were signs
that the transition to the higher equilibrium growth path (Solow growth model) had
stalled. Specifically, throughout the 1920s, the labor market showed signs of
weakening. This is not surprising as labor productivity had soared. As expenditure-
based macroeconomic policy stabilization instruments were still years away, the U.S.
government turned to what at the time were conventional economic policy
instruments, the most celebrated of which was tariff policy. More specifically, under
the leadership of Ranking Senator Reed Smoot, the Republican Party made tariff
revision the cornerstone of its 1928 election campaign. Accordingly, tariff hikes
would close the widening gap between actual and potential output in agriculture and
in manufacturing. By further limiting access to the U.S. market, higher tariffs would
stimulate, in the macroeconomic sense, the U.S. economy (beggar-thy-neighbor).
As such, the proposed higher tariffs should be understood as an attempt on the
part of the Republicans to deal with the growing problem of excess supply. This is not
to say that the U.S. economy was in a slump in 1928, as Irwin (2011) correctly points
out, but rather that it was underperforming relative to the new high-water mark (i.e.,
its new-found potential). 11 Not taking action would inevitably result in growing
unemployment as increasingly productive firms rationalized their labor demand.

>>2970654
>>2970474
So you basically keep repeating things you read, don't apply then, and hope people are convinced.
You should work on your people skills.

>>2970040
t. ungrateful person who attributes his moderate success solely to his personal actions and not to luck and the gifts he's received from others in his life

>>2970759
You need to figure out what you even mean by "apply".

>>2970574
Wow, I've never heard it explained so simply an eloquently. No meme, I'll be using this to explain libertarianism to my friends.

>>2970252

If it wasn't profitable, people wouldn't do it.

>>2970574
>all these Marxian presuppositions

>>2969631
You aren't wrong. All market crashes correct themselves eventually. It's a matter of how much human suffering you can bear to watch, or how many hungry, unemployed people you can manage to keep from revolt.

File: so6.jpg (53KB, 504x380px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 504x380px

>>2969631

You're absolutely right.

Central banks need to be removed.

>>2971039
Communism is the exact same thing.

They're both, in practice, a way for an existing political force in society to ignore ethical norms.

>>2971045
What ethical norms are you referring to?

>>2969640
It ended after WWII when the troops came back and went to work.Government spending can't effectively stimulate the economy for long.
You're just removing money from the private sector and putting it back in after half of it sticks to the government's hands. Or borrowing which is a drain on the private sector when we have to pay it back

>>2970074
Yup

>>2969735
They're not being punished. Their irresponsible behavior just isn't being subsidized.

>>2969631
non government intervention is responsible for it getting out of hand.

>>2969816
>the robber barons have the "free market"
We haven't had a free market for centuries.
Government regulations are there to benefit the "robber barons"

>>2971072
In the case of libertarianism, it would be the tendency of the working class to protect their economic interests with policies like labor unions, progressive income tax, and economic regulations.

Libertarian and lassez-faire ideology has allowed politicians to crack down heavily on unions, cut taxes on the rich, and gut financial regulations, and reduce the political backlash from the people getting fucked over by it.

How many people lost their jobs because a GOP congress repealed Glass-Steagal, and then blamed Obama for being a big government liberal.

The ideology frees elites from accountability.

In the case of Russia and China, Marxism-Leninism allowed the state to impose massive, brutal autocracies on the population, and maintain much greater legitimacy and stability than in their predecessor states, which did the same thing.

Castro was the most obvious example of this; he was the son of a wealthy family, made straight Cs in school while bullying everyone with his brothers, and then became a warlord.

Only after he had the reins of power did he declare himself an ally of the workers, because it allowed him to assume absolute control.

That's what ideology is as often as not, a way for powerful people to protect their self-interest.

>>2969871
What does that graph actually mean? It seems interesting.

>>2970001
>Contrary to those who call Roosevelt a socialist, he did not nationalize any industry.
He did by way of regulation. So, instead of socialism , we should properly refer to it as Fascism

>>2971110
Princeton did a study to see what factors made a law most likely to be passed.

X-axis is what percentage of a given group supported the law, Y-axis was the probability of the law passing.

>>2970039
I think you mean 90% OF humans
90% humans would be some sort of hybrid

>>2971113
What are you referring to specifically?

>>2970158
80s tax cuts = widespread economic growth

>>2971105
The "tendency of the working class to protect their economic interests" is not really an ethical norm. The population is divided on this issue. Perhaps you would like it to be an ethical norm that the working class is to be protected.

It's also hard to see how anything outside of a basic labor union is anything other than rent-seeking for the working class, unless you want to get into Marxism or squabble over the merits of equality.

>>2970474
>The main role of the Federal Government is to prevent Black Swans,
The main role of the Federal government is to protect and defend the USA.
Everything after that is bloat.
Leave that to the states ala the 10th amendment

>>2971145
>The population is divided on this issue

That's the point of small-government conservatives. To get both donations and support from the rich and votes from the masses.

>It's also hard to see how anything outside of a basic labor union is anything other than rent-seeking for the working class

Everyone uses their power to look after their own interests. That's the point of our current system, to ensure that power is distributed as widely as possible, to make sure that the most people are protected.

The role of an ideology such as communism, libertarianism, and in some cases nationalism, is to mislead the masses about their own interests for long enough to fuck them over.

File: batman cast dumfounded shock reaction.jpg (83KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1920x1080px

>>2970574

>>2969631
That's exactly what happened to the depression from 1920-21.


>>2970456
FDR prolonged the depression by about 7 years those are the estimates.

>>2969631
>The Great Depression would have eventually corrected itself even without any government intervention.

Sure but the correction would need to be defended by a socialist state to prevent capitalists from fucking things up again.

>>2969801
Communism pulled Russia and China out of feudalism and brought tremendous improvements to quality of life.

>>2971247
I will maintain this singular, holy truth until the day that I die

Social Democracy > Neoliberalism >>>> libertarianism >>>>>>>>> communism

>>2971113
RANDTARDS GTFO RRRREEEEEEE

FDR continuous to be one of the most divisive and contentious figures on this board.

>>2969653
>>2969662
It is like you people who a socialist united states of America

File: image.jpg (38KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x600px

>>2969631
>given an infinite amount of time, a situation would have eventually changed
>prove me wrong

Kill yourself obviousfag

>>2971672

he's the hero we needed, not the hero we deserved

>>2969631
God, I love these old political comics

>>2969756

This.

Its poor peoples fault they are poor.

>>2969647
Yes an unregulated market that trades sexsual slaves and utilizes child labor is the peak of society.

https://youtu.be/K_LvRPX0rGY

File: pedowoodsign.jpg (74KB, 620x280px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 620x280px

>>2972570
>trades sexsual slaves
Shit even with laws you can't stop the rich from trafficking in humans.

Round the rich up and put them in camps.

They've shows that they are evil and incapable of being decent time and time again.

No freedom for the rich. Send them to the camps.

>>2971042
So by that quote's logic, the children of the wealthy should be stripped of their money, since they did nothing to earn it and were merely born into wealth.

>>2969631
Eventually we're all dead. Prove me wrong.

>>2971081
Ummmm explain this then>>2970534

>>2971128
You meant massive deficits and increases in government spending as a % of GDP.

Unironically, Reagan raised government spending as a % of GDP by more than FDR while Clinton brought it down.

>>2971187
>depression occurred in 1929
>FDR took office in March 1933
>Economy in March 1940 was over 40% higher than in March 1933 and 15% higher than in 1929
>FDR prolonged it by seven years, by raising the GDP 40% in those seven years

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm yes yes you are gonna need a source for that "prolonged" claim.

File: IMG_1014.jpg (123KB, 1437x1065px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1437x1065px

>>2972558

I cannot believe that no one else can see this, but the New Deal and the relief programs were NOT intended to end the depression, which was gonna happen anyway no matter what; the New Deal was designed to preserve the American system. Think about it: 25% unemployment, banks basically do not exist anymore, people aren't getting their government pensions for service in WW1, the government is starting to fall apart at the seams, and some people still have a lot of money. This is like a fucking moist, wet hole for the spores of revolution; the CPUSA already was gaining membership among poor folk in the south. The government needed something, anything, to let the American people know they were still there for them and that this way of life could make it through these tough times. The New Deal gave unemployed men the opportunity to earn a few bucks paving highways or building dams, making sure they knew that even in the toughest of times Uncle Sam wouldn't abandon his own, and usually getting some pretty sweet shit out of it in return, like electricity and clean water to rural areas. People in these areas, who are SUPREMELY susceptible to revolutionary ideologies like Communism and Fascism, get electricity from Uncle Sam at a reduced and easier price, ensuring they know that America is looking out for them. Now you can argue that it's not the government's job to do all that and you can argue that FDR basically bought american's loyalty to the system of America and I wouldn't completely disagree, but the main crux of the entire New Deal was keeping up morale and ensuring that people had much needed hope to get them through the tough times. The problem wasn't the economy returning to stability, that was a given, the problem was making sure that people knew that we COULD get there eventually if we just held onto hope.

>>2974075
The New Deal was meant to do both, and it did do both. The historical facts support that.

>>2969631
Of course you're right. The government attempts to fix it made it worse.

>>2969780
>Rent seeking drives prices up
>But somehow this rise in prices doesn't allow for a big gap of newcomers to enter the market and compete

Rent seeking self-corrects.

>>2973233
No. By that quote's logic, the parent's have the right to choose if they want to give their wealth to their kids or not, which they do.

Being entitled to something and being voluntarily given something is a big difference. Like for example, the difference between theft and charity.

>>2974596
>person puts all their money in an offshore bank account
>pays less taxes
>everyone else poorer
>???????
>the free market will handle it

>>2974704
That's unrelated to the original post, and not more of a problem in free markets. Maybe you've noticed that China has a huge issue with wealth smuggled out into Canada and the U.S.

>>2974746
What do you think rent seeking is?

Hint: it isn't productive labor.

>>2974750
Yes, but it's not the same thing as offshore banking. Why are you trying to conflate the two?

>>2974757
>ignore/evade laws for personal benefit
>pay people to help you do it
>this isn't textbook rent-seeking

Remember that there has never been a state which's sole interest is pareto efficiency.