The Militarization of American Law Enforcement

[Roland]

"The point is, GUYS, nobody has claimed that the government solved the Great Depression, duh, learned that in 3rd grade. That they CAUSED it is laughable. But again, you government haters, I can see where you'd get that one."

First sponsoring a bubble, then the Fed drying up the banking system and government cutting off trade and cutting down spending ? If it wasn't government, who turned a business cycle into such a mess ?

[Ted Striker]

.

[Roland]

"Poorly diversified economy"

Why did the railway bust not create a great depression ?

"Misappropriation of wealth leaving power in rich hands"

Robber barons, recessions - why no great depression there ?

"Lax credit rules and overspeculation"

19th century booms and busts, no credit rules at all and lots of overspeculation (land, railroad...)

"Weak Eurocom economies unable to afford expensive US goods."

In the 19th century the situation was reversed as the US was the debtor - didn't turn recessions into great depressions.

[Berzerker]

Snowfire -

DF, how can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional? You can say you don't like the 14th Amendment. You can say it goes against the principles this country was founded under. You cannot, however, say you are a strict constructionist under the Constitution... "but" one bit.

Unless you're trotting out some tired argument about it being not part of the Constitution because they forgot to dot an i or cross a t in the ratification process, of course.

The 14th Amendment failed to get 3/4ths of the states for ratification, I'd hardly call that dotting the i's.

Ted -

The government can mainly be blamed for two things:

1) High tariffs and isolationism on Eurocoms with devastated economies who couldn't afford to buy expensive American goods

2) Letting the bottom out of the agriculture market

You forgot the monetary policy mistakes.

So what we have here is a wide range of factors in which the government plays a very large role and can share the blame but to say that it CAUSED the Depression is stretching it.

A wide range of factors with the ones linked to government being the primary causes. Would the Depression have resulted from only those "non-governmental" factors? I don't think so...

Hey berzeker, you know Coolidge passed several tax cuts in the twenties, thus keeping the government from "stealing" more of our money, yet that seemed to contribute to the problem of wealth misappropration. Ironic, eh?

He also raised tariffs. And can you actually prove tax cuts added to the problem? Nooooo...

In addition to being a hypocrite, I'd add pretentiousness to your lists of adjectives.

Given the fact you never proved the first charge, I can't wait for your BS attempt to prove the second. You've argued that we need all these social programs because so many people need help, so it's quite funny to now see you accusing me of being pretentious for claiming most people won't take care of themselves.
If they could, we wouldn't need government handouts, doh. Can you find room in your mouth for both feet? I also find it interesting that you didn't bother accusing Richard of being pretentious when he said most people won't take care of themselves. You've succeeded in polluting yet another thread with your hypocrisy.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

It seems like you have alot to more to prove to yourself than just this little aside on the big, bad, evil government out to rape and steal from us all! Anyway...

"Prove to myself"? Try to make some sense, boy.

The Revenue Act of 1926, lowered both Federal income taxes and inheritance tax and favored wealthy businessmen. (That whole trickle-down theory). They received a disproportionate break in tax over the average person, further contributing to the gap between rich, middle class and poor, and putting more money in fewer hands.

Geez! When the income tax was passed, proponents said it would only be imposed on the rich and never go above ~ 10 %. Within a decade the rate was enormous, but only imposed on the "rich". Poor people weren't even paying an income tax so obviously any reduction in tax rates would not effect them. This isn't proof tax cuts caused the Depression. If it was, we should have had an even worse depression a few years earlier when there was no income tax.

Which is what I already mentioned before as monetary policy.

"Monetary" policy was our reference to the Fed, not income taxes.

But I am shore glad he got that money out of the evil gubments hands!!! It created alot of jobs!!!

Government doesn't create jobs, it merely shifts money around.

Your last argument still makes no sense.

Let's see:

You've argued that we need all these social programs because so many people need help

These would be people who won't take care of themselves.

so it's quite funny to now see you accusing me of being pretentious for claiming most people won't take care of themselves.

If I'm "pretentious" for observing the fact most people won't take care of themselves, aren't you also pretentious for claiming we need all these social programs to take care of people who are apparently not taking care of themselves?
Understand now? DUH!

You are claiming people can't find work just because they are lazy and unwilling to work.

I never said that.

When what you don't realize is that they often lose their jobs through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

The number of people who simply cannot take care of themselves because of factors beyond their control is relatively few. Most people can take care of themselves but most won't if politicians are handing them money stolen from others.

ps, did i mention you were a hypocrite?

Yes, and I'm still waiting for proof supporting this accusation. Roland just shredded your ecomomic arguments and you did exactly what you've repeatedly done whenever someone shoots down your fictions - you ignored him.

Are you going to respond to my point about how welfare has increased out of wedlock births or not?

[Berzerker]

Here we have a couple of things going on that you approve of berzerker, two things which contributed to FAILURE:

1) The Supreme Court rules against the minimum wage, taking money out of the lower classes' hands

Can you prove this contributed to the failure or are we supposed to accept your BS as gospel? The fact the minimum wage was not in effect prior to the SC's ruling should have meant there was already a depression. Minimum wage laws destroy jobs because they make it harder for others to employ unskilled workers. If I have a business employing 10 people at $3 an hour and a minimum wage law is passed raising what I have to pay to $4 an hour, I have to either increase the prices of my products or eliminate 1 or 2 of my positions. If I raise prices and competitors also raise prices instead of undercutting me, the cost of living goes up.

2) Tax breaks are given to the wealthy, putting more money in their hands.

How did this "contribute" to the Great Depression? If this was a factor, why wasn't the 19th century plagued with depressions when taxes were so small?

Sounds like real damn fair and effective system to me!

Would it be "fair" if the minimum wage was increased to $20 an hour? Not to all the people thrown out of work by your stinking "compassion".

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Roland
"Poorly diversified economy"

Why did the railway bust not create a great depression ?

Which railway bust? The Panic of 1873? It did. Which resulted in the Great Labor Uprising of 1877, closest the US ever came to a workers' revolution.

"Misappropriation of wealth leaving power in rich hands"

Robber barons, recessions - why no great depression there?

They were called panics and crises back then, that's why. There was a Great Depression in the late 19th Century (it was named so at the time) but all memory of it was wiped out by the 1929-1947 Great Depression.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Minimum wage laws destroy jobs because they make it harder for others to employ unskilled workers. If I have a business employing 10 people at $3 an hour and a minimum wage law is passed raising what I have to pay to $4 an hour, I have to either increase the prices of my products or eliminate 1 or 2 of my positions. If I raise prices and competitors also raise prices instead of undercutting me, the cost of living goes up.

There is another alternative, which those opposed to minimum wage consistently fail to recognize, and which businesses almost always choose; take a short term profit hit instead of laying people off or raising prices. Eventually they get that profit back as more money in people's hand's means that more of their products are getting purchased. Every increase in the minimum wage has resulted in a corresponding increase in jobs.

My father constantly complains everytime there's an increase in minimum wage and says he'll just have to lay some people off. The fact is, he can't get people to work for him at minimum wage as it is, and generally has to pay higher than min wage to get something close to full staffing. Most min wage jobs are sh*tty service sector jobs that no one wants to work anyways (cuz they're only min wage).

[Roland]

The time between 1873 and the early 1890s has been called great depression, but it was quite different from 1929-33. A series of slumps and short booms, but not a contraction of 30-40 % in 3 years.

[chequita guevara]

Catastrophic failure of capitalism is a possible outcome of the system. That's part of being a dynamic system.

[Roland]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Catastrophic failure of capitalism is a possible outcome of the system. That's part of being a dynamic system.

And recovering from failures is also part of that dynamic system. I'm not sure how cyclical modern economies are without government interference, but when you have institutionalised failure (aka FRB) running the show from the government side, it is difficult to determine. But you have to wonder what was different in 1929 - I'd go for the government fostered bubble and government pushed collapse.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

.