[phlanx]

Elliot,

I will bow down to your expertise on economics, so please answer me this

In the Depression of the 1920s, it is my understanding that the Givernment at the time allowed banks to fail all over the place, this prolonged the depression

If the banks in most of the western world had not be bailed out, wouldn't it have had such a knock on effect that we would have been in a depression again and not just a recession?

[ETWolverine]

Elliot,

I will bow down to your expertise on economics, so please answer me this

In the Depression of the 1920s, it is my understanding that the Givernment at the time allowed banks to fail all over the place, this prolonged the depression

If the banks in most of the western world had not be bailed out, wouldnt it have had such a knock on effect that we would have been in a depression again and not just a recession?

Actually, what prolonged the depression was NOT the failures of the banks. Other banks were quickly formed, and they took the place of the failed ones with very little muss or fuss. The economy of the USA trudged on even in the face of the failures of the banks, and the newer banks just slid right in and took up the slack. The recovery from the bank failures was very quick, and in fact, despite popular belief, very few depositors ended up losing money due to those failures. Those few who did lose lost MASSIVE AMOUNTS to be sure, but those were not "economy killers" the way it is often portrayed. And most people saw full or near full recovery of their deposits within short order. The system didn't fail so much as it shifted the burden to other financial institutions. And if that had been all that occurred, we would have recovered within 18 months to 2 years.

What really prolonged the Depression was FDR's taxation and monetary policies. He raised taxes, which caused and INCREASE in unemployment. He created massive welfare programs that he couldn't pay for, and borrowed money and printed money to pay for them, creating massive inflation. What few jobs he created were all "makework" programs that didn't actually produce anything, and therefore never ended up priming the economic pump that real employment causes. It was the massive unemployment, government spending, runaway inflation and high interest rates caused by these policies that drew out the Depression for 10 years longer than it should have lasted.

BTW, do any of FDR's policies remind you of Obama's Stimulus Bill initiatives? Remember the shovel-ready jobs that Obama promised? How about his massive spending? The quintupling of the US Budget Deficit? Increasing the national debt by over $3 trillion?

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

There's a REASON I get so excitable about Obama's policies. They are a mirror image of what FDR did during the Great Depression that made matters WORSE not better.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Planx,

As a side note, if the reason for the Great Depression was the failure of the banks, then the inception of WWII and the wartime buildup of our economy would not have been able to cure that problem.

The War buildup created jobs, which reversed FDR's "makework" and "welfare" policies.

The buildup caused an increase in PRODUCTION and therefore a need for raw materials that primed the economic pump and rippled through the entire economy, causing economic growth. This was a direct reversal of the non-productive "makework" (read: shovel ready) jobs policy of FDR that resulted in a stagnant economy with zero or negative growth.

The buildup required funding via a "war bond" program that lowered interest rates and decreased the availability of cash in the market, thus decreasing interest rates and inflation rates.

In essence the Wartime Buildup was the perfect cure to the disease caused by FDR's prior policies.

That would NOT have been true of a Depression caused by bank failures.

Just something to think about.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Elliot,

Any decent housewife knows that the best way out of a financial mess is to scrimp, and we all know that nearly every country in the western world has done the opposite, basically gambling on what will happen next

Back in the 90s we finally paid you guys off for what we borrowed in WW2

We are now back in debt, and whole lot of it, and the only way out of it to decrease public spending, and increase taxes

So yep, I am with you on this issue, sometimes you have to take the knock to prevent the fall

So do you think a stable economy will stave off the future of increase taxes - because I don't!

[phlanx]

PS Cheers for the info on the depression, all I know about that era is the Al Capone Stories :)

[ETWolverine]

So yep, I am with you on this issue, sometimes you have to take the knock to prevent the fall

Exactly.

So do you think a stable economy will stave off the future of increase taxes - because I don't!

One is not a function of the other. Stable economies don't prevent governments from increasing taxes. So I agree with you.

The key to preventing tax increases, as I have mentioned before, is the same as the key to preventing government from doing anything else we don't like... enforcing the Constitutional limits on their power.

In the alternative, voting the bums out of office works pretty well too.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

PS Cheers for the info on the depression, all I know about that era is the Al Capone Stories :)

My pleasure.

:D

[paraclete]

Your math is off. If cheeseburgers were free then everyone would gorge themselves on free cheeseburgers.

The same is true with medical care. I am more inclined to do a web search and treat a routine stomach ache than go to a doctor and get treated for a fee. I can go to the store and purchase otc's for the sniffles instead of going to the doctor to get perscriptions that do the same thing the otcs do . But if it were free;perhaps the equation changes.

So yes the system would be overwhelmed as demand of free services increases.

Tom do you listen to yourself or do you just rave? If cheeseburgers were free would you gorge yourself on cheeseburgers? What you have just said tells me that you have a very low opinion, even lower than mine, of your fellow countrymen. I mean I already think they gorge themselves on cheeseburgers. But seriously;

Obtaining medical care is a function of how sick you are and how much time you have available or wages you can afford to loose. If you are a user of free medical services such as in the ER you know you are going to have to wait, so you are not going to increase your usage of free medical services for trivial matters. Going to the doctor for a sniffle will not get your prescribed a drug which will lessen the duration of your sickness but it might get you some good treatment advice like stay home and don't infect others, so you could get a net sum gain in doctors attendances. What you are really complaining about is that the poor, the destitute, or the homeless might actually be enthused to see a doctor.

[Wondergirl]

I am more inclined to do a web search and treat a routine stomach ache than go to a doctor and get treated for a fee.

If indeed it is a routine stomach ache. What if you misdiagnose yourself, get desperately ill, end up in the hospital, and the medical staff employs all their resources to save your life? And you end up with a $100K bill. But look at the bright side -- you didn't have to pay that doctor's fee.

[tomder55]

I think there is an equal chance that the doctor can do the misdiagnosis. Everything the doctor orders I do a web search on also .

You all can deny it all you want to . Increased demand needs to be met with increased supply ,or scarcity .Scarcity is met with either higher prices or rationing .

[Wondergirl]

I think there is an equal chance that the doctor can do the misdiagnosis. Everything the doctor orders I do a web search on also .

You all can deny it all you want to . Increased demand needs to be met with increased supply ,or scarcity .Scarcity is met with either higher prices or rationing .

I recently went through the misdiagnosis thing and ended up in the hospital, but that's another story for another day.

So then let's make the medical field more attractive. During my hospital stay, I noticed a huge increase in the numbers of male nurses and lab techs.

[galveston]

If government runs all the health care, whether from insurance perspective or not, what it will amount to is everyone on medicare.

That's what I have now.

BUT, there are already doctors who REFUSE to accept any new medicare patients.

Price controls on doctors' wages (as with medicare) will only dry up supply.

It looks good for the moment, but will soon fail completely. What then? Doctors forced to work for the government at dictated wages?

So much for freedom, right?

FREE MEN ARE NOT EQUAL: EQUAL MEN ARE NOT FREE.

[Wondergirl]

If government runs all the health care

Who said "all"?

[excon]

You see, government is trying to use "global warming" as an excuse to grab more power,

Hello again:

You and I don't DISAGREE on the evils of government at all... We also don't DISAGREE on governments' NEED to grab more power.

Where we DISAGREE is, in WHICH part of government is the BAD GRABBY part. It was clear to me, after all, that the dufus and vice were INCREASING, CONSOLIDATING, and GRABBING for more power. It IS what governments DO. They grab for power. There's NO disagreement there...

Although, you'll probably throw up your hands and look at me wide eyed, while you argue that when the dufus did what HE did, he was only following the Constitution, and doing what he NEEDED to do to protect us... And, I go riiiiiiiggggghhhhttttt...

THIS is where the disagreement lies...

Just as you said that the dufus needed to expand government to protect us, I'm going to say that Obama needs to expand government in order to protect us... In terms of the expansion of government, there isn't a substantial difference between us.

One of us is wrong. I know who.

excon

PS> Yes, I took your quote from another thread.

[ETWolverine]

Who said "all"?

That would be President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Barney Franks, Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein and Jacob Hacker. Among others.

See my previous post on the subject.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2043925

Elliot

[Wondergirl]

That would be President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Barney Franks, Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein and Jacob Hacker. Among others.

See my previous post on the subject.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2043925

Elliot

Not to worry. You willl be able to keep your private health insurance plan.

[speechlesstx]

Not to worry. You willl be able to keep your private health insurance plan.

Yeah, you guys keep saying that. If you believe that I've got some great property in New Jersey I'd like to sell you.

[ETWolverine]

Not to worry. You willl be able to keep your private health insurance plan.

YOU keep saying that. But the people who are putting the plan together and are going to be running it are telling us that we WON'T.

Which part of "We want a single payer health plan, and we're going to use the 'public option' to make that happen" are you having trouble understanding?

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Although, you'll probably throw up your hands and look at me wide eyed, while you argue that when the dufus did what HE did, he was only following the Constitution, and doing what he NEEDED to do to protect us.... And, I go riiiiiiiggggghhhhttttt...

Since that's the way the conversation is generally going to go, why don't we just skip to the part where you have no response, start changing the subject, and generally lose the argument, and I say "Checkmate". We can save time that way.

Elliot

[phlanx]

YOU keep saying that. But the people who are putting the plan together and are going to be running it are telling us that we WON'T.

Which part of "We want a single payer health plan, and we're going to use the 'public option' to make that happen" are you having trouble understanding?

Elliot

I am sure you get 100 politicians in a room and you will get 100 ideas

I really can't see anybody trying to force a single system onto the US especially when the insurance companies and vast amount of medical companies would loose out, which I understand have a powerful say in the government

Private Medical Cover will still be available like it is anyway in the world regardless of what system of health plan is in place