I ask you again, did American history begin in 1890? I’m starting to think you may not know the answer to this one.
As to why it matters, you claimed that government got big with Hoover, and that was what made the great depression last so long. So wouldn’t an earlier, longer depression blow your theory out of the water.? If facts had any impact on your opinions, that is.
the point is not that 17% = zero. The point was that full employment was reached so quickly after Harding did nothing. whereas Hoover and FDR fell all over themselves to rescue the economy and gave us ten years of the highest unemployment rate in US history.
can you just give me a link or some how reference the facts you are using here? I can’t really argue with someone who hides his facts behind his back.
Economist Thomas Sowell writes:
"Unemployment peaked at 9 percent in December 1929 and was back down to 6.3 percent by June 1930, when the first major federal intervention took place under Herbert Hoover. The unemployment decline then reversed, rising to hit double digits six months later. As Hoover and then FDR continued to intervene, double-digit unemployment persisted throughout the remainder of the 1930s.
Conversely, when President Warren G. Harding faced an annual unemployment rate of 11.7 percent in 1921, he did absolutely nothing, except for cutting government spending.
Keynesian economists would say that this was exactly the wrong thing to do. History, however, says that unemployment the following year went down to 6.7 percent – and, in the year after that, 2.4 percent.
Under Calvin Coolidge, the ultimate in non-interventionist government, the annual unemployment rate got down to 1.8 percent."
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/10/15/a-return-to-keynes-n1723516/page/full
Well, if you concede that 17% is not zero, that makes your repeated claims that we had zero unemployment in the 1920s … well, it makes your statements completely fucking wrong. False. Factually incorrect. Ignorant.
Wait, you think referencing American history is hiding facts?
You fucking moron. You stupid fucking moron.
I am very willing to concede that 17% is not zero. wow. great work. that is entirely irrelevant to my point.
My argument is that when we compare the 20s to the 30s, we see that govt attempts to rescue the economy end up making the economy worse, not better. Try harder to focus on that instead of tilting at windmills.
what data from US history did you reference? I never saw it.
It’s a good thing we eventually got the unemployment rate back down, by killing all those social programs Hoover and FDR created.
That is what happened, right?
Your point that there was zero unemployment in the 1920s would seem to be damaged by learning that there was actually 17% unemployment in the 1920s, yes.
I see that you are now trying to pretend you never said that, which is good, because only a complete fucking moron would say something like that.
I’m basically referencing the common knowledge of American history that all American students learned in grade school. The fact that you are unaware of this knowledge, and think I’m hiding secret facts, tells me a lot about you.
Now, I could give you some terms to google, but I think we’ve established at this point that you’re not really a “facts” or “reality” or “education” kinda guy.
Mercy you are a difficult fellow. Ok…I went out and found some numbers. I trust these are as accurate as any other set of numbers. If you have something different, please do post.
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%
Well I am thankful to have met so learned a person as yourself. I am sure I can learn alot from you. Please do share with me the US history that I am missing. I really do want to sit at your feet and learn from you.
You seem to be conceding that when you said “unemployment was zero in the 1920s”:
So, how has learning these things changed your opinions?
It hasn’t, because changing your opinion based on new facts is a weakness from which you do not suffer
I’m not sure posting them one minute before I posted mine really counts. I’m not that fast a typist. :rolleyes:
But Chile and Botswana are interesting choices. Not the libertarian paradises I expected from you, and I’m not sure how well they’d compare with the US or Western Europe by the criteria you laid forth, but interesting.
Sure, here’s lesson 1: all those social programs were created because they met a need that the free market wasn’t meeting. Conservatives who don’t understand this are ignorant.
We’ll move on to lesson 2 once you’ve demonstrated that you understand lesson 1
Quotes from cornopean’s link: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/10/15/a-return-to-keynes-n1723516/page/full
.
What was the federal intervention and how did it increase unemployment?
How did cutting spending stabilize unemployment at 11.7%?
This appears to me to be a case of correlation equaling causation. What caused unemployement to decline so precipitously?
How did Coolidge’s non-interventionist government effect a 1.8% unemployment?
I read the linked article. It appears to me that is long in correlation, but lacking in hard data on how these policies caused the results.
There is no libertarian paradise on this planet. 
and the point of the index is to show the effect that economic freedom has. Botswana and Chile are not nearly as free as I would want them to be. But they are freer than the other countries in their area. and it shows.
If you were ranking the relative factors contributing to Botswana’s GDP, how would 1) economic freedom rate against 2) natural diamond reserves?
I have no argument with how of a well-regulated free market can improve the lives of a country’s citizens. I just fail to understand how those countries should be emulated. Some specifics, please.
You really should admit you fucked up with that “zero unemployment” statement. You’re flailing in that argument and nobody will respect you less if you admit you misspoke. Mostly because nobody could respect you less because you said it.
Welcome to the SDMB. Pay attention and maybe you can learn something, like I did when I tried to counter your Botswana and Chile examples. I try to know everything but I was a few years out of date with those two.