Does 17% = 0 ring a bell? Or are you still struggling with those short and long term memory issues still ?
Correct you? Brah, I already have a full time job…
lax regulations?? no govt oversight? which planet do you live on? This govt has so many regulations and laws that businesses have to hire people to sort thru it all.
Furthermore, the govt caused the housing bubble by insuring banks and allowing Fannie/Freddie to make possible subprime lending.
when is this govt activity going to get us out of the recession? Obama has been president for going on 6 years and the recession drags on. How much longer do we have to wait? or is it possible that (just like during the Great Depression) all this govt activity is PROLONGING the recession?
do you deny that we had full employement (or zero unemployment) for most of the 20s? and that we had double digit unemployment for most of the 30s?
Well, I deny that these are the same thing, so yes.
And “the 20s” and “most of the 20s” are also not the same thing.
And “cornopean” and “smart” are also not the same thing, but I’m still not convinced “cornopean” and “adaher” are different.
This is fun.
It almost seems as if you don’t want to face the facts I am referencing.(?) I know it’s not true…but I just can’t escape the suspicious that you are trying to dismiss my facts. 
At any rate, I will post my facts again and let the readers judge:
Unemployment rate
Year Lebergott Romer
1919 1.4% 3.0%
1920 5.2% 5.2%
1921 11.7% 8.7%
1922 6.7 6.9%
1923 2.4 4.8%
source: Depression of 1920–1921 - Wikipedia
Here is a great picture to show you the radical difference between the 20s and the 30s in terms of unemployment: File:US Unemployment 1910-1960.gif - Wikipedia
I think the other contributors have done a good job of explaining the issue.
Let me add one thing. Suppose you’re FDR, and you realize that the elderly, widows, etc. in your society aren’t doing so well. You call in a couple of advisors and ask them to give you suggestions.
The first advisor says “here’s the plan; we tell the current elderly to go back in time, set aside 15% of their income for their entire working lives, then when they come back to the present time they’ll have savings to support themselves. Some of those who have to declare bankruptcy, or have their savings stolen, or who make bad investments…well, they’re just going to die, but what can you do?”
The second advisor says “I like the time travel idea, but I see a few problems with it. Here’s an alternative suggestion; we ask the people who are currently working to give a little of their paychecks to the elderly, widows, etc. so they can buy food and housing. In return, when those guys retire, we’ll ask the young guys to do the same for them. That way we can have all the elderly taken care of for all time” [note: except for the very last generation, who are going to get screwed.]
Which of those plans seem better to you? Oh, and in the second plan, please point out the portion of income that the government is investing for you.
I love how you go from not having the slightest clue about an issue that most of us learn about in grade school, to confidently asserting what every historian in the world thinks on the topic.
You are either the greatest genius the world has ever known (who by some mischance spent his grade school years in a coma), or you seriously overestimate your understanding of things.
Needs more lol.
But no one can escape the suspicious. NO ONE.
So…SS is an investment?
Congratulations, you have managed to find a chart on Wikipedia. Now look to the right of the chart. What happens to unemployment? Looks to me like everything on the right half of the chart shits on your opinion.
You should try not to be any more stupid than you can help.
wikipedia notes that this “long depression” as they call it was also quite shallow. Economic depression - Wikipedia some economists estimate that unemployment never got into double figures. I don’t deny it was a serious economic contraction but it was nothing like the Great Depression which Hoover/FDR gave us.
Not sure which opinion of mine you are referring to. ? Unemployment went way down after the 30s b/c of war production. do you like to fight your battles in the fog? I never can quite pin down what argument you are making or which point you are defending.
The long depression was also quite…long. Which shits on your claim that it was the social security programs created in the '30s that made depressions last so long.
Was the unemployment zero?
I asked you before if average unemployment rates were higher before or after the great depression. You couldn’t come up with an answer, probably because it wasn’t given to you on Wikipedia (that, or you used the wrong search terms again, you idiot). Now go fucking answer that question. It’ll help prevent you making more of a fool of yourself.
I’m fairly certain the argument he’s making is that you are making stuff up and cherry picking your data by perusing wikipedia and hoping you don’t get challenged. Your “baffle 'em with bullshit” style of debate can be effective in ending the conversation, but not in actually making people think you aren’t a fool.
Try reading The Big Short or any other decent account of the housing crash. Mortgage backed securities are totally unregulated. That was a major contributor to the crash.
What short fucking memories we have.
Good god. Can people really be this stupid? How does **cornopean **get dressed in the morning?!