WW2. GDP was upper teens for 3 years in a row. Yes, it was due to govt spending, and the massive build-up of defense spending. There is a big difference between government spending, and the government being 25% of GDP. Are you advocating WW3, and massive defense spending again? I am sure not. I am not sure if that period of time has much relevance wrt current GDP growth.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Bringing Moral Courage to American Politics
- Thread starter iuwclurker
- Start date
What was economically beneficial about government spending during WWII? IOW, we paid millions of people to shoot Germans/Japanese. We paid millions of people to build bombs, airplanes, tanks, ect., that most likely were just going to be destroyed. What was the economic return on investment from shooting a German soldier?
Well, for starters, maybe not having Adolph Hitler running our country. I would think there is some long term benefit to that not happening. You?
That doesn't explain why the economy improved, from building bombs, dropping bombs, or shooting Germans. No, I don't think having Hitler running our country would have been beneficial, but that didn't happen, and the economy improved.
There was no direct economic benefit from shooting Germans or dropping bombs. We didn't receive $15 dollars for every German plane that we shot down, or building we destroyed. Could you imagine if the government would have spent a bunch of money on things that had a return on investment, even a small return on investment? I can, because Eisenhower did it in the 50's, with roads, schools, and bridges.
We got all that economic growth from paying people to make bombs, then paying people to drop bombs? That economic growth came, in part, from artificially inflating the labor market. Something that we could really use today.
So, my broader point is, we don't need WWIII to spur economic growth. But infrastructure spending could do, and has done, the same thing. Improving mass transit, rural broadband, building windmills, ect., there are so many things we could do that would have a higher economic return than blowing up a German tank.
The government spending money, i.e. infrastructure spending (which I have been in favor of for some time), is different than government becoming a bigger and bigger part of GDP. You will never see GDP growth as we have in previous years with government being such a large percentage of it. It is an impossibility.
As for direct economic improvement that you cite. Sure in the context in which you describe it, there is not. There is also no direct economic improvement in giving vacation days to employees, or family leave, or a lunch break. But it is needed.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you blaming entitlements for our slow growth?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=mVG2
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mZBp
I apologize. I'm not being coy. I sincerely don't understand the point you're trying to make. I'm blaming our slow growth on income inequality, a weak middle class, and suggesting that a large increase in infrastructure spending could help by artificially inflating the labor market. (I do understand your in favor of infrastructure spending too.) Spending alone will not solve our problems, but it could be part of the solution.
There seems to be a correlation between tax law changes and GDP growth. Note in the first graph: since 1980, GDP has hit 5% one time (1984), and hasn't hit 4% since the Bush tax cuts in 2001. If we care about debt and deficits, we should care about growth, and the middle class. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and are not pro growth.
That sure does have a familiar ring to it. Can't quite put my finger on it....
I am on record here as having respect for what AOC has accomplished so quickly and having hope for her to mature and be successful.
That said I Think we need a thread just for AOC gaffes. I read in her victory speech regarding Amazon pulling out that NY could spend that $3B in givebacks on other needs.
I had to read it in a second source to believe my eyes. Is she actually this ignorant regarding this type of arrangement? Does she really think that money is sitting in an envelope addressed to Bezos? This isn't meme material, it is far more concerning.
That said I Think we need a thread just for AOC gaffes. I read in her victory speech regarding Amazon pulling out that NY could spend that $3B in givebacks on other needs.
I had to read it in a second source to believe my eyes. Is she actually this ignorant regarding this type of arrangement? Does she really think that money is sitting in an envelope addressed to Bezos? This isn't meme material, it is far more concerning.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Yes she is that ignorant. Or she knows exactly what she’s saying and is the Left’s equivalent of Trump’s populist lying.
A lot of it just funny immaturity. Like her "creep shot" or NGD comments, but this one is concerning.
I get the joy in the making fun of AOC's foibles, but are there larger economic issues from the perspective of the disaffected voters who elected President Trump and AOC that is being glossed over? I think there is one that is being missed.
if that's the best ya got, you gotta be really really really really desperate to find something to rag on AOC about.
Do you understand there is a fundamental difference between a wall mean to keep people out vs. a wall meant to keep people in?
Because we have a sitting congresswoman that doesn't.
Does the fence around my house serve the same utility as the wall around a federal prison?
Yes, according to AOC.
possibly the disagreement emanates from your assuming the US, like your house, belongs solely to you and those already here, rather than others less fortunate but just as deserving as you, who also want to join the club as well.
i get it, you and others who want to cut off access once you and your's are already safely in, called dibs first, and too bad for those left without a chair when you want the music stopped.
reality is, stopping all immigrating probably is greatly in the financial best interests of the working class.
but while it is in their best interests, it still hurts those left out, far more than it helps those benefiting from keeping others out.
as i've stated many times here, i'm not a fan of the either/or hard line, where either the working class gets their wall, or things stay more open.
i prefer acknowledging that both sides have legit concerns, thus prefer solutions that help both sides rather than just one or the other.
keep access more open, while at the same time compensating the working class who lose a lot economically to immigration, with minimum working living wages, universal medicare for all, and serious rent control.
pitting both sides against each other with only one side coming out a winner is openly pushed 24/7/365 by both parties, and is a disgrace that it's pushed by either.
both sides need help. not just one side at the expense of the other.
This is your caricature that you've created of those who are pro wall/ strong border security.
Because the rest of your post is based on said caricature, it's really not worth responding to.
Come back when you can make a good faith argument.
Last edited:
Actually there is a basis for that. Mexico was inhabited by a large indigenous Indian population in the way far back before the Spanish showed up. I'd wager that a good percentage of Hispanics in the US today have a significant Native American DNA makeup. Far more than Elizabeth Warren, for sure.
So, I'd call her correct on this one.
Indigenous "Indians" were 100% of the population before the Spanish showed up.
The vast vast majority of Latin Americans are ethnically Native American. Unlike the British and other northern Europeans who swarmed over North America, the Spanish didn't exterminate the natives. They simply conquered them.
Indigenous "Indians" were 100% of the population before the Spanish showed up.
The vast vast majority of Latin Americans are ethnically Native American. Unlike the British and other northern Europeans who swarmed over North America, the Spanish didn't exterminate the natives. They simply conquered them.
Yeah, I struggled with how to phrase that. I couldn't say American Indians or Native Americans, since obviously they wouldn't have called been that in the 16th century. But yes, many Latinos in the US today are descendants of what we'd now refer to as Native Americans. or American Indians.
I still feel as if I'm not saying that correctly.
According to my coworkers, two second generation Mexican Americans, Mexico and Central America are ethnically Amerindian to a great, great extent. However, there is a power elite who are of Spanish decent. The "eye test" makes that pretty clear. Look at the rulers of most of those countries and you'll see Europeans, not Amerindians. My coworkers look like Indians, not Europeans.
Last edited:
The native part isn’t the dumb part. The dumb part is intimating they shouldn’t be subject to current laws.
I didn't really get that from what she said. Absent context, I have no idea what she's saying.
I readily concede that her speeches are filled with just enough gibberish as to render her larger point uncertain. As in “we cannot be told and criminalized simply for our identity and our status.” ????? Lol.
Seemed pretty clear to me though that she was referring to Latinos and immigration.
Interesting that she was really lambasted by a co-founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) over the weekend, referring to her as a "pompous little twit." Ouch. Of course Patrick Moore is hardly a card-carrying member of Greenpeace anymore. Instead, he is now an advisor to The Heartland Institute. Something tells me that Greenpeace wishes the press would stop mentioning that he was one of their co-founders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
Latest posts
-
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza- Latest: BradStevens
-