1969 AUCTION LEAGUE - CHAT ONLY
by franky35 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:38 am
ok, I'm ready to rumble. The point that I'm arguing is that increased government spending causes a short term increase in employment (in other words, more employment than would occur in the absence of that spending); and, therefore, that, in general, it is logical for the government to run a deficit in times of high unemployment and a surplus in times of low unemployment.
ugrant wrote [quote:76be2227d1]Nice job, Franky, for staying on topic for once. [/quote:76be2227d1]
I agree that I was all over the place. So, I'll limit my posts to one question at a time. In this case, that question is: In the United States, was there higher employment, and lower unemployment, during WWII as compared to before WWII?
ugrant, I would like you to answer with a "yes" or a "no", and also keep on topic.
ugrant wrote [quote:76be2227d1]Nice job, Franky, for staying on topic for once. [/quote:76be2227d1]
I agree that I was all over the place. So, I'll limit my posts to one question at a time. In this case, that question is: In the United States, was there higher employment, and lower unemployment, during WWII as compared to before WWII?
ugrant, I would like you to answer with a "yes" or a "no", and also keep on topic.
- franky35
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by franky35 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:46 am
A more interesting question to the real issue at hand is whether allstar's strategy will pay off. Allstar has tons of cash, but the premium players are all off the board. So, it looks like allstar will have quality across-the-board but no superstars.
So far, my team is looking pretty bad, I've spent more than half my cash and I have 3 really good players plus one great player (Gibson).
So far, my team is looking pretty bad, I've spent more than half my cash and I have 3 really good players plus one great player (Gibson).
- franky35
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by ugrant » Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:43 am
Franky - "Yes", but I disagree with you as to why, and I'm surprised you haven't realized that yet.
A question for you: can you name one other instance, other than WWII, where massive govt deficit spending created jobs in the US?
A question for you: can you name one other instance, other than WWII, where massive govt deficit spending created jobs in the US?
- ugrant
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by franky35 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:13 am
ugrant, OK thanks. Next question. During WWII, was the higher employment (lower unemployment) a result of spending by the US government?
In response to your question, I'm not aware of any period of massive deficit spending by the US government that is similar to the scale of deficit spending during WWII (as a percent of the US economy). So, to me, your question is a nonsequitor since other than WWII, the US government has never undertaken massive deficit spending.
I take the position that the US economy operates as a function of supply and demand - and when the demand for US labor increases, unemployment decreases. In the case of the relatively meager current stimulus spending package, economists estimate that it has reduced unemployment by about a couple percent or so.
In response to your question, I'm not aware of any period of massive deficit spending by the US government that is similar to the scale of deficit spending during WWII (as a percent of the US economy). So, to me, your question is a nonsequitor since other than WWII, the US government has never undertaken massive deficit spending.
I take the position that the US economy operates as a function of supply and demand - and when the demand for US labor increases, unemployment decreases. In the case of the relatively meager current stimulus spending package, economists estimate that it has reduced unemployment by about a couple percent or so.
- franky35
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by ugrant » Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:51 pm
Franky, WWII represented a country totally mobilizing for war. Let me say that again, totally mobilizing for war.
It involved creating an army from a foundation of a few thousand to millions. So much so that a new workforce had to be found to man the industries created to support the war (women and minorities). Those industries included ship building, war munitions, the Manhattan Project, new aircraft, and lots, lots more.
If you are arguing that we need to do that now, so be it. I disagree.
Since you have stated there are no other periods that would support your hypothesis, there isn't much point in continuing this discussion.
I would point to Roosevelt 1932-1938 (even he gave up in 1939) and Reagan 1980-1988. You, however, just gave in that those periods of massive deficit spending did not work. I think you might possibly have an argument with Reagan, but you appear to be too politically polarized to concede that point to a Republican.
Btw, you never did ask me a personal about my political leanings, but just so you know I never voted for Reagan and think we would have been much better off had Mondale won in 1984.
It involved creating an army from a foundation of a few thousand to millions. So much so that a new workforce had to be found to man the industries created to support the war (women and minorities). Those industries included ship building, war munitions, the Manhattan Project, new aircraft, and lots, lots more.
If you are arguing that we need to do that now, so be it. I disagree.
Since you have stated there are no other periods that would support your hypothesis, there isn't much point in continuing this discussion.
I would point to Roosevelt 1932-1938 (even he gave up in 1939) and Reagan 1980-1988. You, however, just gave in that those periods of massive deficit spending did not work. I think you might possibly have an argument with Reagan, but you appear to be too politically polarized to concede that point to a Republican.
Btw, you never did ask me a personal about my political leanings, but just so you know I never voted for Reagan and think we would have been much better off had Mondale won in 1984.
- ugrant
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by franky35 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:26 pm
Next question. During WWII, was the higher employment (lower unemployment) a result of spending by the US government?
I can't figure from your last post whether you answered "yes" or "no" to the above question.
Also, I don't want to get too far off topic, but here is a link to a graph showing the federal deficit as a function of GDP. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
In WWII it maxed out at about 28%. In WWI about 17%. Currently about 12%. The period of 1933-37 looks about 3-5% (which I think no one would call massive) and the Reagan years about 4-7%.
I can't figure from your last post whether you answered "yes" or "no" to the above question.
Also, I don't want to get too far off topic, but here is a link to a graph showing the federal deficit as a function of GDP. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
In WWII it maxed out at about 28%. In WWI about 17%. Currently about 12%. The period of 1933-37 looks about 3-5% (which I think no one would call massive) and the Reagan years about 4-7%.
- franky35
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: 1969, 1986, 1999
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests