Members Phishmonkey Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 I'm still waiting to hear how undercomsumption didn't lead to the depression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members notcool Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Why? So a bunch of queens can beat up on me? the Political Party is gang rape central for anyone who doesn't march to the beat of their drum. Oh, so those of us on the left are queens and you guys on the right are macho tough guys? Is that what you're saying? If it is, the discussion is about masculinity (or supposed lack thereof), not politics or economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 I'm still waiting to hear how undercomsumption didn't lead to the depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression Read up. Apparently it is still under debate, unlike how you portrayed it. Secondly, underconsumption is a misleading term. What it implies is an underconsumption in market driven investment. People thought they could make more money outside the market. I don't get your point professor. "Two economists of the 1920s, Waddill Catchings and William Trufant Foster, popularized a theory that influenced many policy makers, including Herbert Hoover, Henry A. Wallace, Paul Douglas, and Marriner Eccles. It held that the economy produced more than it consumed, because the consumers did not have enough income. Thus the unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s caused the Great Depression" Cut right from the article. Notice who influenced this theory: politicians. Over producing anything will kill that product's value. Do it on a large scale...yeah, I guess it is underconsumption. But that is a weak ass way of saying people didn't purchase enough and it's their fault for not buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Oh, so those of us on the left are queens and you guys on the right are macho tough guys? Is that what you're saying? If it is, the discussion is about masculinity (or supposed lack thereof), not politics or economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression Read up. Apparently it is still under debate, unlike how you portrayed it. Secondly, underconsumption is a misleading term. What it implies is an underconsumption in market driven investment. People thought they could make more money outside the market. I don't get your point professor. I don't know what the {censored} you're saying. Underconsumption = not enough people buying consumer goods From wikipedia In underconsumption theory, recessions and stagnation arise due to inadequate consumer demand relative to the amount produced. "Two economists of the 1920s, Waddill Catchings and William Trufant Foster, popularized a theory that influenced many policy makers, including Herbert Hoover, Henry A. Wallace, Paul Douglas, and Marriner Eccles. It held that the economy produced more than it consumed, because the consumers did not have enough income. Thus the unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s caused the Great Depression" Cut right from the article. Notice who influenced this theory: politicians. What a surprise, thats exactly what I said. Of course the information source is tainted though Fortunately I remembered that I still have my AP review book "Many scholars believe that there was a problem of underconsumption, meaning that ordinary workers and farmers... did not have enough money to keep buying the products which were being produced. One estimate says that the income of the top 1% of the population increased at least 75% while that of the botton 93% increased only 6%" Tax policies benefited big business and the wealthy lead to disparity, and then the trickle down theory failed miserably when people stopped buying consumer products The explicit purpose of this book is to help students do well on the AP US History test, a standardized test made by collegeboard taken by hundreds of thousands of high school students. So are you going to tell me that collegeboard, in collaboration with tens of thousands of schools nationwide, are part of some political conspiracy to advance the liberal agenda by feeding misinformation to our children? Protip- when all the facts you find disagree with you, it doesn't always meant there's a conspiracy. Sometimes you're just wrong Over producing anything will kill that product's value. Do it on a large scale...yeah, I guess it is underconsumption. But that is a weak ass way of saying people didn't purchase enough and it's their fault for not buying. So I'm wrong how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 I don't see anything in there that disagrees with what I said And I remembered that I still have my AP review book "Many scholars believe that there was a problem of underconsumption, meaning that ordinary workers and farmers... did not have enough money to keep buying the products which were being produced. One estimate says that the income of the top 1% of the population increased at least 75% while that of the botton 93% increased only 6%" Tax policies benefited big business and the wealthy lead to disparity, and then the trickle down theory failed miserably when people stopped buying consumer products The explicit purpose of this book is to help students do well on the AP US History test, a standardized test made by collegeboard taken by hundreds of thousands of high school students. So are you going to tell me that collegeboard, in collaboration with tens of thousands of schools nationwide, are part of some political conspiracy to advance the liberal agenda by feeding misinformation to our children? Protip- when all the facts you find disagree with you, it doesn't always meant there's a conspiracy. Sometimes you're just wrong Dear douchenozzle, This is still a theory. Kind of like the theory of relativity is still taught in schools. Just because its in a text book, it isn't necessarily true. Colleges have been known to be wrong before...When you rely on one theory when many are out there for the explanation of a multifaceted event like the Great Depression, you might be putting a few too eggs in one basket. When any economy over produces goods, it will crumble on itself. Not even the trickle down effect can work properly in an over inflated economy. Its not designed to dummy! Producers were producing regardless of demand. That sounds like solid application of economic theory!!! If it wasn't producers killing the economy by over producing, it would have been the government by printing money for people to purchase goods that they couldn't use. Love,Marshallnoise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 So I'm wrong how?Underconsumption was a symptom of a bigger problem: Over production. Saying underconsumption is the cause of the Great Depression is like saying, consumers were at fault for not buying what producers wanted them to buy. How silly of a theory is this? Its basically saying that Over Production was the blame, but instead we are going to say that poor people didn't buy stuff and blame it on the rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Dear douchenozzle, This is still a theory. Kind of like the theory of relativity is still taught in schools. Just because its in a text book, it isn't necessarily true. Colleges have been known to be wrong before... I'm so {censored}ing sigging that When you rely on one theory when many are out there for the explanation of a multifaceted event like the Great Depression, you might be putting a few too eggs in one basket. When any economy over produces goods, it will crumble on itself. Not even the trickle down effect can work properly in an over inflated economy. Its not designed to dummy! Producers were producing regardless of demand. That sounds like solid application of economic theory!!! If it wasn't producers killing the economy by over producing, it would have been the government by printing money for people to purchase goods that they couldn't use. Love, Marshallnoise Right, producers didn't adjust production to stay in line with the decreasing demand. Now, can you tell me why there was no demand? kthxbai Oh wait, this needs special attention If it wasn't producers killing the economy by over producing, it would have been the government by printing money for people to purchase goods that they couldn't use. Thank you for showing the internets that you have no concept of basic economic theory or historical fact. You're seriously telling me that inflation was the problem during the great depression? Really? You think that when the consumer price index plummets the problem is inflation? Wow... Underconsumption was a symptom of a bigger problem: Over production. Saying underconsumption is the cause of the Great Depression is like saying, consumers were at fault for not buying what producers wanted them to buy. How silly of a theory is this? Its basically saying that Over Production was the blame, but instead we are going to say that poor people didn't buy stuff and blame it on the rich. Find where I said that. I said that consumers had no {censored}ing money because only the top 7% of the country's earners benefited significantly from the prosperity of the 1920s. This is why Andrew Mellons tax policies failed. This is why cutting taxes uniformly doesn't work. This is why disparity is a serious economic problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 I'm so {censored}ing sigging that You should. I'm awesome. Right, producers didn't adjust production to stay in line with the decreasing demand. Now, can you tell me why there was no demand? kthxbai Because the capital raised was being reinvested in more production capability to hire more workers and produce more. As encouraged by the administrations in power. They wanted more industrial investment, they kept loan rates low, and bing. Oh wait, this needs special attention Thank you for showing the internets that you have no concept of basic economic theory or historical fact. You're seriously telling me that inflation was the problem during the great depression? Really? You think that when the consumer price index plummets the problem is inflation? Wow... I didn't say inflation was the problem. I said that if they had responded by printing money, it would have killed the economy just the same. Find where I said that. I said that consumers had no {censored}ing money because only the top 7% of the country's earners benefited significantly from the prosperity of the 1920s. This is why Andrew Mellons tax policies failed. This is why cutting taxes uniformly doesn't work. This is why disparity is a serious economic problemThe reason why the economy failed is because the tail started to wag the dog. Giving more money to spend to the poor at the expense of the rich (outside of providing them jobs) does not solve unsound economic practices. It just perpetuates the whole problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 You should. I'm awesome. Because the capital raised was being reinvested in more production capability to hire more workers and produce more. As encouraged by the administrations in power. They wanted more industrial investment, they kept loan rates low, and bing. You didn't even try to answer my question I didn't say inflation was the problem. I said that if they had responded by printing money, it would have killed the economy just the same. No, the country needed inflation, deflation was the problem. By your logic FDR should have killed the economy when he took the country off the gold standard The reason why the economy failed is because the tail started to wag the dog. Giving more money to spend to the poor at the expense of the rich (outside of providing them jobs) does not solve unsound economic practices. It just perpetuates the whole problem. I disagree with you, therefore I'm a socialist? I'll sum up what I've said so far in this thread1) Cutting taxes at a uniform rate across the board favors the upper class and leads to a disparity of wealth2) Disparity can lead to economic problems, and it did during the great depression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 I'll sum up what I've said so far in this thread 1) Cutting taxes at a uniform rate across the board favors the upper class and leads to a disparity of wealth 2) Disparity can lead to economic problems, and it did during the great depression 1) So does one person working and another not working. 2) People not working can lead to economic problems, and it can lead to the great depression too. LMAO!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 1) So does one person working and another not working. 2) People not working can lead to economic problems, and it can lead to the great depression too. LMAO!!! None of that made any {censored}ing sense. Seems like you're just reverting to calling everything I say socialist as usualBut, you know what, I'll bite. Tell me how the great depression was actually caused by people not working and the poor people trying to take money from those who earned it. Apparently I failed my AP test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted June 25, 2009 Author Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 1) So does one person working and another not working. 2) People not working can lead to economic problems, and it can lead to the great depression too. LMAO!!! It's responses like these that make me lose my temper with you."I know you are but what am I?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 It's responses like these that make me lose my temper with you. "I know you are but what am I?" Well hell! I am getting a bit punchy. Its been a long day Becker. I am sorry for having fun with you all afternoon. But it was fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 None of that made any {censored}ing sense. Seems like you're just reverting to calling everything I say socialist as usual But, you know what, I'll bite. Tell me how the great depression was actually caused by people not working and the poor people trying to take money from those who earned it. Apparently I failed my AP test Quotes out of context are funny though. I don't think I ever called you a socialist. But feel free to quote that one in your sig too! I am not telling you that this "people not working and the poor people trying to take money from those who earned it" was the cause of the Great Depression. Geeze!!!I need to go home and . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phishmonkey Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 2) People not working can lead to economic problems, and it can lead to the great depression too. wat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 wat?I need to crank my sarcasm up a notch. I was making a parody of your post. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Caulk Rocket Posted August 19, 2009 Members Share Posted August 19, 2009 {censored}ing amateurs. Bernanke Admits the Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depressionhttp://digg.com/business_finance/Bernanke_Admits_the_Fed_Caused_the_Great_Depression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BusterBuster Posted August 19, 2009 Members Share Posted August 19, 2009 I consider myself very rich. I'm still sucking air and have a clean bill of health Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members imgooley Posted August 19, 2009 Members Share Posted August 19, 2009 Hey! I'm in the lowest 20% {censored}ing socialism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rich Posted August 19, 2009 Members Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ummm, the OP wanted to point out how evil our nation is because only the rich own everything and the middle class and poor get screwed by the people at the top. Granted, he didn't overtly state this, he just implied it by posting class warfare. Might as well be HC vs TGP. Either way, rich guys are bad and poor/middle class = Good. Most poor and middle class have made an appointment to be in their situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.