Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Statist Myths About US History

jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:10:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1.) The railroad was "indispensable" to USA economic expansion.

This is, in fact, not true. There was potential for substitute technologies and the savings were quite small. Robert Fogel famously proved that the contribution of the railroad to US economic growth was relatively small:

http://www.amazon.com...

Statists often claim that the federal government subsidizing the railroad industry was a big driver of innovation and growth. In fact, the railroad growth didn't even have much to do with economic growth in the first place.

2.) Progressive activism (Upton Sinclair) and resulting action forced (Pure Food and Drug Act) the "corrupt" and "unsanitary" meat packing industry to adopt sanitary conditions.

Very common myth. In fact, Sinclair never visited a meat packing factory. And, big meat packing companies supported the Pure Food and Drug Act as a means to keep out competition. This is documented here:

http://www.fee.org...

3.) The New Deal and the Second World War ended the Great Depression.

Perhaps the most common myth. In fact, the New Deal worsened the Great Depression by bringing about regime uncertainty and artificially boosting wages. Robert Higgs documents the effects of regime uncertainty here:

http://www.independent.org...

Lee Ohanian documents the effects of artificially high wages:

http://online.wsj.com...

As for World War II. Unemployment was down and GDP growth was up. However, this was merely because of a wartime buildup. Private investment was depressed and standard of living was way down. What good is GDP growth if living standards are declining?

Spending on war goods didn't improve lives so including them in GDP gives a misleadingly positive picture of the World War II economy. In fact, the recovery didn't take place until after World War II ended and private investment resumed. Robert Higgs, once again, documents this here:

http://www.independent.org...

There are more myths. But, those are three economic myths that I can think of. All of these myths help build support for the state, which is likely why they are perpetuated. Thoughts?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:17:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

What an intelligent and noble response...
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:20:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

BTW. This is what members who don't know what they're talking about say. No evidence. No arguments.

Just an unsupported claim that they are too smart to respond. Thanks for letting everyone know how ignorant you are, Ore Ele.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:39:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:20:19 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

BTW. This is what members who don't know what they're talking about say. No evidence. No arguments.

Just an unsupported claim that they are too smart to respond. Thanks for letting everyone know how ignorant you are, Ore Ele.

You created the GD thread over 2 years ago with your first incarnation here

http://www.debate.org...

Then again with your second incarnation here

http://www.debate.org...

So don't go trying to pull out that you're not being a complete troll on the subject.

I've shown in other threads and debates that the depression was exacerbated by the dust bowl which was a result of free market over farming and a lack of rotating fields to let the soil recover. It was free market forces that extended the GD.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 10:16:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:39:00 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:20:19 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

BTW. This is what members who don't know what they're talking about say. No evidence. No arguments.

Just an unsupported claim that they are too smart to respond. Thanks for letting everyone know how ignorant you are, Ore Ele.

You created the GD thread over 2 years ago with your first incarnation here

http://www.debate.org...

Then again with your second incarnation here

http://www.debate.org...

So don't go trying to pull out that you're not being a complete troll on the subject.

I've shown in other threads and debates that the depression was exacerbated by the dust bowl which was a result of free market over farming and a lack of rotating fields to let the soil recover. It was free market forces that extended the GD.

Funny part is that I won the argument on both of those threads. Thanks for proving my point. I've proven it before.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 10:39:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.

The thing to note is that the GD was caused by a simple 1-2 hit. We of course know about the financial collapse that occurred in 1929 that triggered the start of the collapse, but it was continued after that as the weather began drying up in 1930. Farming from the 1920's made up 27% of the countries work force. They were hit hardest by the events as the frozen market made it difficult to get credit, and the weather caused their farms to turn belly up. When farming is hit so hard, we can easily tell what will happen to the rest of the market from basic supply and demand. The demand for food can't drop a whole lot (at least not at that time, now is a different story), but when supply collapses, that causes a massive spike in food costs (again, basic S&D), that raises the cost of living for EVERYONE, be they poor or rich. You also have a surge of unemployed people (all the farmers that can't work) now competing for jobs. Basic supply and demand lets us know that more workers translates to lower wages. So you have lower wages and higher food costs. It doesn't take a lot to figure out what happens.

Ultimately, the solution is the restoration of the agricultural market. This is done two ways. First, by limiting the amount of people lost from the market by the weather. The government did this by purchasing cattle that was deemed "unfit for human consumption" at prices well above market values to help keep farmers afloat. They ultimately sent many of those "unfit" cattle to be turned into food in a "better to eat unfit food, than no food" act of desperation.

The other method is to recognize what is needed for long term farming stability. This is done by rotating crops and cattle. The free market did not do this because it is less efficient in the short term (free market forces tend to not think far in the future as most business people do not). Even though crop rotation has been understood since ancient Egyptians, the settlers in the great plains did not follow this (though many eastern farmers did). Ultimately the government had to pay farmers to do this, as they would not do it on their own (they probably eventually would have, or more likely, they would have all abandoned their farms and the next generation of farmers would have done it).

While there is no real "end" to the dust bowl, the worst of it was over by 1935, but the effects on the land continued for many years after. It should also be noted that from the Dust Bowl, more people flocked to California than did due to the gold rush. Turns out we'll run from a bad situation more than we'll run towards a good situation (perceived good, anyway).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 10:40:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 10:39:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.

The thing to note is that the GD was caused by a simple 1-2 hit. We of course know about the financial collapse that occurred in 1929 that triggered the start of the collapse, but it was continued after that as the weather began drying up in 1930. Farming from the 1920's made up 27% of the countries work force. They were hit hardest by the events as the frozen market made it difficult to get credit, and the weather caused their farms to turn belly up. When farming is hit so hard, we can easily tell what will happen to the rest of the market from basic supply and demand. The demand for food can't drop a whole lot (at least not at that time, now is a different story), but when supply collapses, that causes a massive spike in food costs (again, basic S&D), that raises the cost of living for EVERYONE, be they poor or rich. You also have a surge of unemployed people (all the farmers that can't work) now competing for jobs. Basic supply and demand lets us know that more workers translates to lower wages. So you have lower wages and higher food costs. It doesn't take a lot to figure out what happens.

Ultimately, the solution is the restoration of the agricultural market. This is done two ways. First, by limiting the amount of people lost from the market by the weather. The government did this by purchasing cattle that was deemed "unfit for human consumption" at prices well above market values to help keep farmers afloat. They ultimately sent many of those "unfit" cattle to be turned into food in a "better to eat unfit food, than no food" act of desperation.

The other method is to recognize what is needed for long term farming stability. This is done by rotating crops and cattle. The free market did not do this because it is less efficient in the short term (free market forces tend to not think far in the future as most business people do not). Even though crop rotation has been understood since ancient Egyptians, the settlers in the great plains did not follow this (though many eastern farmers did). Ultimately the government had to pay farmers to do this, as they would not do it on their own (they probably eventually would have, or more likely, they would have all abandoned their farms and the next generation of farmers would have done it).

While there is no real "end" to the dust bowl, the worst of it was over by 1935, but the effects on the land continued for many years after. It should also be noted that from the Dust Bowl, more people flocked to California than did due to the gold rush. Turns out we'll run from a bad situation more than we'll run towards a good situation (perceived good, anyway).

There is just a quick summary.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 10:40:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:39:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.

The thing to note is that the GD was caused by a simple 1-2 hit. We of course know about the financial collapse that occurred in 1929 that triggered the start of the collapse, but it was continued after that as the weather began drying up in 1930. Farming from the 1920's made up 27% of the countries work force. They were hit hardest by the events as the frozen market made it difficult to get credit, and the weather caused their farms to turn belly up. When farming is hit so hard, we can easily tell what will happen to the rest of the market from basic supply and demand. The demand for food can't drop a whole lot (at least not at that time, now is a different story), but when supply collapses, that causes a massive spike in food costs (again, basic S&D), that raises the cost of living for EVERYONE, be they poor or rich. You also have a surge of unemployed people (all the farmers that can't work) now competing for jobs. Basic supply and demand lets us know that more workers translates to lower wages. So you have lower wages and higher food costs. It doesn't take a lot to figure out what happens.

Ultimately, the solution is the restoration of the agricultural market. This is done two ways. First, by limiting the amount of people lost from the market by the weather. The government did this by purchasing cattle that was deemed "unfit for human consumption" at prices well above market values to help keep farmers afloat. They ultimately sent many of those "unfit" cattle to be turned into food in a "better to eat unfit food, than no food" act of desperation.

The other method is to recognize what is needed for long term farming stability. This is done by rotating crops and cattle. The free market did not do this because it is less efficient in the short term (free market forces tend to not think far in the future as most business people do not). Even though crop rotation has been understood since ancient Egyptians, the settlers in the great plains did not follow this (though many eastern farmers did). Ultimately the government had to pay farmers to do this, as they would not do it on their own (they probably eventually would have, or more likely, they would have all abandoned their farms and the next generation of farmers would have done it).

While there is no real "end" to the dust bowl, the worst of it was over by 1935, but the effects on the land continued for many years after. It should also be noted that from the Dust Bowl, more people flocked to California than did due to the gold rush. Turns out we'll run from a bad situation more than we'll run towards a good situation (perceived good, anyway).

There is just a quick summary.

Thanks, even that little but is enlightening.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:18:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 10:39:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.

The thing to note is that the GD was caused by a simple 1-2 hit. We of course know about the financial collapse that occurred in 1929 that triggered the start of the collapse, but it was continued after that as the weather began drying up in 1930. Farming from the 1920's made up 27% of the countries work force. They were hit hardest by the events as the frozen market made it difficult to get credit, and the weather caused their farms to turn belly up. When farming is hit so hard, we can easily tell what will happen to the rest of the market from basic supply and demand. The demand for food can't drop a whole lot (at least not at that time, now is a different story), but when supply collapses, that causes a massive spike in food costs (again, basic S&D), that raises the cost of living for EVERYONE, be they poor or rich. You also have a surge of unemployed people (all the farmers that can't work) now competing for jobs. Basic supply and demand lets us know that more workers translates to lower wages. So you have lower wages and higher food costs. It doesn't take a lot to figure out what happens.

No mention of the federal reserve or smoot hawley?


Ultimately, the solution is the restoration of the agricultural market. This is done two ways. First, by limiting the amount of people lost from the market by the weather. The government did this by purchasing cattle that was deemed "unfit for human consumption" at prices well above market values to help keep farmers afloat. They ultimately sent many of those "unfit" cattle to be turned into food in a "better to eat unfit food, than no food" act of desperation.

The other method is to recognize what is needed for long term farming stability. This is done by rotating crops and cattle. The free market did not do this because it is less efficient in the short term (free market forces tend to not think far in the future as most business people do not). Even though crop rotation has been understood since ancient Egyptians, the settlers in the great plains did not follow this (though many eastern farmers did). Ultimately the government had to pay farmers to do this, as they would not do it on their own (they probably eventually would have, or more likely, they would have all abandoned their farms and the next generation of farmers would have done it).

While there is no real "end" to the dust bowl, the worst of it was over by 1935, but the effects on the land continued for many years after. It should also be noted that from the Dust Bowl, more people flocked to California than did due to the gold rush. Turns out we'll run from a bad situation more than we'll run towards a good situation (perceived good, anyway).

First off, the free market is much better than the government at raising long term productivity. By subsidizing agriculture, the government held back economic progress. That simple.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:19:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.

I am correct on #3. There are really no good arguments to the contrary.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 12:21:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:19:41 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.

I am correct on #3. There are really no good arguments to the contrary.

I don't just accept what anybody says. Maybe your both right or both wrong or some combination of the 2. I'll find out later. He did give me information I've not considered before.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 1:00:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:18:54 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:39:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.

The thing to note is that the GD was caused by a simple 1-2 hit. We of course know about the financial collapse that occurred in 1929 that triggered the start of the collapse, but it was continued after that as the weather began drying up in 1930. Farming from the 1920's made up 27% of the countries work force. They were hit hardest by the events as the frozen market made it difficult to get credit, and the weather caused their farms to turn belly up. When farming is hit so hard, we can easily tell what will happen to the rest of the market from basic supply and demand. The demand for food can't drop a whole lot (at least not at that time, now is a different story), but when supply collapses, that causes a massive spike in food costs (again, basic S&D), that raises the cost of living for EVERYONE, be they poor or rich. You also have a surge of unemployed people (all the farmers that can't work) now competing for jobs. Basic supply and demand lets us know that more workers translates to lower wages. So you have lower wages and higher food costs. It doesn't take a lot to figure out what happens.

No mention of the federal reserve or smoot hawley?

Can you not deal with different arguments?



Ultimately, the solution is the restoration of the agricultural market. This is done two ways. First, by limiting the amount of people lost from the market by the weather. The government did this by purchasing cattle that was deemed "unfit for human consumption" at prices well above market values to help keep farmers afloat. They ultimately sent many of those "unfit" cattle to be turned into food in a "better to eat unfit food, than no food" act of desperation.

The other method is to recognize what is needed for long term farming stability. This is done by rotating crops and cattle. The free market did not do this because it is less efficient in the short term (free market forces tend to not think far in the future as most business people do not). Even though crop rotation has been understood since ancient Egyptians, the settlers in the great plains did not follow this (though many eastern farmers did). Ultimately the government had to pay farmers to do this, as they would not do it on their own (they probably eventually would have, or more likely, they would have all abandoned their farms and the next generation of farmers would have done it).

While there is no real "end" to the dust bowl, the worst of it was over by 1935, but the effects on the land continued for many years after. It should also be noted that from the Dust Bowl, more people flocked to California than did due to the gold rush. Turns out we'll run from a bad situation more than we'll run towards a good situation (perceived good, anyway).

First off, the free market is much better than the government at raising long term productivity. By subsidizing agriculture, the government held back economic progress. That simple.

Reality says otherwises, but then that is why I don't engage with you. Rather than providing something, you merely assert an unsupported claim. As said, the Free Market created the Dust Bowl problem and was not willing to fix it in a timely manner. If they were, the government would not have needed to get involved.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 1:03:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 1:00:35 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:18:54 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 10:39:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:46:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:17:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:14:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

You're unsupported claim is entirely wrong. #2 and #3 are clearly correct. The New Deal did hurt the economy, World War II did not end the depression, and the Pure Food and Drug act was a sham. I provided damning evidence for all of this here.

If you were a regular member, I'd probably go through the time to show you wrong on both of those, but there really isn't any point as you won't learn anything from it. So it is just wasted time.

I'd like to see where he's wrong on number 3. I'm in no rush to find out, though.

The thing to note is that the GD was caused by a simple 1-2 hit. We of course know about the financial collapse that occurred in 1929 that triggered the start of the collapse, but it was continued after that as the weather began drying up in 1930. Farming from the 1920's made up 27% of the countries work force. They were hit hardest by the events as the frozen market made it difficult to get credit, and the weather caused their farms to turn belly up. When farming is hit so hard, we can easily tell what will happen to the rest of the market from basic supply and demand. The demand for food can't drop a whole lot (at least not at that time, now is a different story), but when supply collapses, that causes a massive spike in food costs (again, basic S&D), that raises the cost of living for EVERYONE, be they poor or rich. You also have a surge of unemployed people (all the farmers that can't work) now competing for jobs. Basic supply and demand lets us know that more workers translates to lower wages. So you have lower wages and higher food costs. It doesn't take a lot to figure out what happens.

No mention of the federal reserve or smoot hawley?

Can you not deal with different arguments?

I can. But, to argue that the FD or SH had NOTHING to do with the depression is absurd.




Ultimately, the solution is the restoration of the agricultural market. This is done two ways. First, by limiting the amount of people lost from the market by the weather. The government did this by purchasing cattle that was deemed "unfit for human consumption" at prices well above market values to help keep farmers afloat. They ultimately sent many of those "unfit" cattle to be turned into food in a "better to eat unfit food, than no food" act of desperation.

The other method is to recognize what is needed for long term farming stability. This is done by rotating crops and cattle. The free market did not do this because it is less efficient in the short term (free market forces tend to not think far in the future as most business people do not). Even though crop rotation has been understood since ancient Egyptians, the settlers in the great plains did not follow this (though many eastern farmers did). Ultimately the government had to pay farmers to do this, as they would not do it on their own (they probably eventually would have, or more likely, they would have all abandoned their farms and the next generation of farmers would have done it).

While there is no real "end" to the dust bowl, the worst of it was over by 1935, but the effects on the land continued for many years after. It should also be noted that from the Dust Bowl, more people flocked to California than did due to the gold rush. Turns out we'll run from a bad situation more than we'll run towards a good situation (perceived good, anyway).

First off, the free market is much better than the government at raising long term productivity. By subsidizing agriculture, the government held back economic progress. That simple.

Reality says otherwises, but then that is why I don't engage with you. Rather than providing something, you merely assert an unsupported claim. As said, the Free Market created the Dust Bowl problem and was not willing to fix it in a timely manner. If they were, the government would not have needed to get involved.

No. Reality supports my assertion. And nature created the dustbowl... not the free market.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 7:47:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The reason that the Big Meat Packing plants supported this was, because more people would buy from them if they knew that it didn't have a little piece of Borris in it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 1:23:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 7:47:23 AM, lannan13 wrote:
The reason that the Big Meat Packing plants supported this was, because more people would buy from them if they knew that it didn't have a little piece of Borris in it.

Thanks for providing so much evidence for this claim.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 3:08:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Truth is, the rabid right have attempted to dredge up events in US history and then exaggerate and take them out of context to serve their sick agenda of hate. And especially, they want to fight the civil war over again to see if they can relegate black people to a lower position something similar to slavery.

They just cannot get it through their thick skulls that they lost that civil war!
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 4:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 3:08:16 PM, monty1 wrote:
Truth is, the rabid right have attempted to dredge up events in US history and then exaggerate and take them out of context to serve their sick agenda of hate. And especially, they want to fight the civil war over again to see if they can relegate black people to a lower position something similar to slavery.

They just cannot get it through their thick skulls that they lost that civil war!

Is this a joke?

I certainly hope that stupidity of this level does not exist for real on this site.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:36:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 4:02:10 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 3:08:16 PM, monty1 wrote:
Truth is, the rabid right have attempted to dredge up events in US history and then exaggerate and take them out of context to serve their sick agenda of hate. And especially, they want to fight the civil war over again to see if they can relegate black people to a lower position something similar to slavery.

They just cannot get it through their thick skulls that they lost that civil war!

Is this a joke?

I certainly hope that stupidity of this level does not exist for real on this site.

Oh this is no joke. This guys for real. Just look up some of his other posts.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 5:56:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:12:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
#2 and #3 are easy enough to prove you wrong and have been done countless times on this site, but I've never really heard of #1.

#1 is a great point in modern history of history, because it was when statistics were first used to properly analyse the benefit/cost of slavery to the American economy. Fogel criticised the contention that slavery was an economically inefficient practice, by being a really statistics-based account of the economic history of slavery.

While it was a good work as it came out, as it made historians take more note of numbers, there are two problems. Firstly, it has been universally agreed upon that it made methodological errors. No-one would cite it any more except in a history of history book (like Evans' 'In Defence Of History', which details this in its second chapter, if I remember the book at all). Secondly, his economic history in general was quite shoddy.

Just to add an addendum, that isn't to say Fogel is racist or malicious in writing the book. He just made a fatal maths error which he didn't catch. Similarly, the cliometrics (the method) used in his earlier work in railway has been criticised by basically everyone. That's not to say he is wrong - the critics have also been widely criticised. A good review on Fogel is the following:

Railroads, American Growth, and the New Economic History: A Critique
Peter D. McClelland
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...