"It is a point of faith amongst the Libertarian set that FDR caused the depression."
You can make a good case that Roosevelt failed to end the Great Depression; Hitler did that, not just in Germany but in America. Though the latter was NOT to the Fuhrer's advantage, to put it most mildly.
But STARTING it? Well, not even Herbert Hoover's Swiss banker would believe THAT. Makes even LESS sense than the "backdoor to war" theory, which is also NOT born out by the historical record. Unless Gen. Marshall was Winston Churchill's secret agent and burned all the evidence!
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
The thing that got the US out of the Great Depression was WW II
Have you read Jim Grant's The Forgotten Depression? It makes an excellent case for why economies bounce back quicker without intervention, than with it.
I haven't but I'm going to order on Amazon @RCS. Thanks for the recommendation.
His argument is that the fake quote the Sarah Vine apologised for spreading is both fake and that it is not fake?
I don't quite follow.
Yes, I think he's got it wrong, and let her off the hook (Because she does have questions to answer)
But he's mixed up the fake tweets with some real tweets AND he's overdone the police angle, as williamglenn says she just got the wrong link, hardly a sacking ofence
To me it looks like they have two twitter accounts, the Cambridge Police, and they quote each other so are both legit. This is the legit one quoting the alleged fake one.
Be very interesting to see how the Leicester lockdown will work. As I write above, you can get on a train at Leicester station and be standing at the bar in Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem, Nottingham, in 30 minutes. So you have pretty much every pub in central Nottingham within very easy reach. If young people had been planning a pub day on Saturday, what’s stopping them doing that? Are they going to prevent people getting on the train?
Be very interesting indeed to see how it works. It’s something of a testbed for the local lockdown model.
I doubt you can social distance even 1.5m in Ye Olde Trip! It is basically narrow caves! So no one will be standing at the bar.
On topic - in US of A we've got a SERIOUS backlog re: infrastructure. If you recall, Trumpsky made a big deal about how he was going to tackle this problem - probably made the difference in Wisconsin to mention just one close 2016 outcome.
SO what's Our Fearless Leader done about it? ZILCH. Despite fact it was one Trump plank that many Democrats could support.
IF he'd even tried to act like he was interested, he MIGHT be doing a bit better than he is today. And given that the race will probably tighten a bit - but not enough for the MAGAman - by November, then any progress toward his alleged goal would have potential to maybe put him over the top.
Especially since most of the projects that could be tackled are OUTDOOR construction jobs, most of which would be possible to work on despite the pandemic. And would be helping boost the economy & employment at this critical juncture.
IF the Donald gave a rat's ass. But he don't, not one dropping's worth.
You should perhaps try and think about something other than Trump for a while. PB's personalised ads are clearly telling you something!
Re infrastructure, it is one of the big black marks against Trump this time around. Simply, the pace of infrastructure spending has gone backwards in the US in the last four years. In real terms, America spends less than half it did in 1988 at the end of Reagan's term.
It's ironic, because this was probably an area where Trump could have gotten bipartisan support for doing stuff.
Being a lawyer in St Louis is clearly quite a profitable biz
In many parts of the US you can buy palatial homes for the price of a Zone 1 flat.
Well yes, if the local security situation is such that you are likely to find a protest march going across your front lawn any time and the only way you can feel safe is by arming yourself with heavy weaponry, property prices are likely to be a bit on the low side.
You know how you get those fires that permanently burn (coal seams etc)?
In St Louis they have a fire like that. With a thin wall separating it from the dump where the Manhattan Project waste was buried.
Interesting that FDR was way more popular in UK than in the US. Would have been hard indeed in to find any Wendell Willkie supporters in the UK in 1940, and Tom Dewey fans in 1944, aside from Oswald Mosley & co.
I sense a link between the Government's enthusiasm for infrastructure projects and their desire for "civil service reform". Normally the civil service would carry out a "value for money" exercise before embarking on large projects. There was once a time when the Conservative Party cared about value for money.
Be very interesting to see how the Leicester lockdown will work. As I write above, you can get on a train at Leicester station and be standing at the bar in Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem, Nottingham, in 30 minutes. So you have pretty much every pub in central Nottingham within very easy reach. If young people had been planning a pub day on Saturday, what’s stopping them doing that? Are they going to prevent people getting on the train?
Be very interesting indeed to see how it works. It’s something of a testbed for the local lockdown model.
I doubt you can social distance even 1.5m in Ye Olde Trip! It is basically narrow caves! So no one will be standing at the bar.
Okay, fair point (and good pedantrybetting) but you get my point!
His argument is that the fake quote the Sarah Vine apologised for spreading is both fake and that it is not fake?
I don't quite follow.
Yes, I think he's got it wrong, and let her off the hook (Because she does have questions to answer)
But he's mixed up the fake tweets with some real tweets AND he's overdone the police angle, as williamglenn says she just got the wrong link, hardly a sacking ofence
To me it looks like they have two twitter accounts, the Cambridge Police, and they quote each other so are both legit. This is the legit one quoting the alleged fake one.
Blue ticked twitter --> Cambridgeshire police website --> list of local twitter accounts including the other one. Twitter
Follow Cambridgeshire Constabulary on Twitter @CambsCops Follow Peterborough Police on Twitter @PboroCops Follow Huntingdonshire Police on Twitter @HuntsCops Follow Fenland Police on Twitter @FenCops Follow East Cambridgeshire Police on Twitter @EastCambsCops Follow South Cambridgeshire Police on Twitter @SouthCambsCops Follow Cambridge City Police on Twitter @CambridgeCops
Be very interesting to see how the Leicester lockdown will work. As I write above, you can get on a train at Leicester station and be standing at the bar in Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem, Nottingham, in 30 minutes. So you have pretty much every pub in central Nottingham within very easy reach. If young people had been planning a pub day on Saturday, what’s stopping them doing that? Are they going to prevent people getting on the train?
Be very interesting indeed to see how it works. It’s something of a testbed for the local lockdown model.
I doubt you can social distance even 1.5m in Ye Olde Trip! It is basically narrow caves! So no one will be standing at the bar.
Okay, fair point (and good pedantrybetting) but you get my point!
Yep. One would hope that a serious local lockdown includes only essential travel, as was the case in the critical part of the national lockdown.
I 'aint holding my breath though with this shambles of an administration.
Please help a simpleton out. Presuming the government can borrow at lower rates than private institutions what is the point of the assorted PFI schemes.
The debt is still owed right? Its just shuffled around a little.
Accounting.
Under Major it was a slightly theoretical way of bringing the private sector into operating contracts for assets that couldn’t be sold (a type of privatisation) but was pretty small scale
Brown saw it as a way to spend more than he promised to because someone else paid the upfront and then made oodles of cash for years to come.
There was a company that tried that in the private sector. It was called Enron. I wonder what happened to them?
I've heard it described as like a credit card - fine to transfer small amounts in time (for short periods). Start living off it....
A CFO would have been locked up.
Brown spent money but claimed it wasn’t part of the national debt therefore he was living within his budget
A friend works in private banking - the stories he tells me, convince me that 90% of the allegedly wealth actually own 1% of their apparent assets.
Bricks of credit cards rotating the balances, mortgages on top of mortgage.
Then they come in and want to borrow more. To live on....
Buy a yacht 50m. Borrow 25m against it at very low interest rates as it is very secure. Rinse and repeat
But I guess it depends which private bank your friend works at...
More like - by the yacht on £50 million loan. Then it turns out the yacht was really £40 million. £5 million was to keep the life style rolling. £5 million probably went to the yacht broker who set the whole thing up, complete with inflated price....
Please help a simpleton out. Presuming the government can borrow at lower rates than private institutions what is the point of the assorted PFI schemes.
The debt is still owed right? Its just shuffled around a little.
It used to be an off the books liability. It isn't now so it doesn't get used.
The theoretical point of PFI was that it would allow risk sharing. Say there was demand for a bridge in East London. A firm would build and operate the bridge, and would get paid according to how many people used it. If the bridge was less popular than expected, or the costs of building it overran, then it would be the private sector that was on the hook.
However, as @MaxPB points out, it was mostly used to hide government debt.
The Voyager tanker/transports mentioned in the header are prime example of why this is stupid. It's already cost more than if we'd bought them. And we are restricted in what the RAF can do with them.
Agreed 100%. The RAF thought "hmmm... we have a budget for new planes of xxx.. I know what let's use PFI and then someone else actually buys the planes, and it doesn't come out of that pot..."
(I would note that this is not just a government problem. Firms try and shift capex and opex around all the time.)
Please help a simpleton out. Presuming the government can borrow at lower rates than private institutions what is the point of the assorted PFI schemes.
The debt is still owed right? Its just shuffled around a little.
Accounting.
Under Major it was a slightly theoretical way of bringing the private sector into operating contracts for assets that couldn’t be sold (a type of privatisation) but was pretty small scale
Brown saw it as a way to spend more than he promised to because someone else paid the upfront and then made oodles of cash for years to come.
There was a company that tried that in the private sector. It was called Enron. I wonder what happened to them?
I've heard it described as like a credit card - fine to transfer small amounts in time (for short periods). Start living off it....
A CFO would have been locked up.
Brown spent money but claimed it wasn’t part of the national debt therefore he was living within his budget
A friend works in private banking - the stories he tells me, convince me that 90% of the allegedly wealth actually own 1% of their apparent assets.
Bricks of credit cards rotating the balances, mortgages on top of mortgage.
Then they come in and want to borrow more. To live on....
Buy a yacht 50m. Borrow 25m against it at very low interest rates as it is very secure. Rinse and repeat
But I guess it depends which private bank your friend works at...
More like - by the yacht on £50 million loan. Then it turns out the yacht was really £40 million. £5 million was to keep the life style rolling. £5 million probably went to the yacht broker who set the whole thing up, complete with inflated price....
Oh. One of those banks...
No - you'd be surprised. He was bought in to deal with a problem. And found waaaay more than that.
Be very interesting to see how the Leicester lockdown will work. As I write above, you can get on a train at Leicester station and be standing at the bar in Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem, Nottingham, in 30 minutes. So you have pretty much every pub in central Nottingham within very easy reach. If young people had been planning a pub day on Saturday, what’s stopping them doing that? Are they going to prevent people getting on the train?
Be very interesting indeed to see how it works. It’s something of a testbed for the local lockdown model.
Pubs showing Leicester play CP on Sky might be busy, but I suspect hard to find in Nottingham...
Lots of pubs will show it - Derby vs Forest is the early kick off and Notts aren’t playing again until the playoffs start. It’s up against the Utd game but some pubs will show both.
Being a lawyer in St Louis is clearly quite a profitable biz
In many parts of the US you can buy palatial homes for the price of a Zone 1 flat.
Well yes, if the local security situation is such that you are likely to find a protest march going across your front lawn any time and the only way you can feel safe is by arming yourself with heavy weaponry, property prices are likely to be a bit on the low side.
You know how you get those fires that permanently burn (coal seams etc)?
In St Louis they have a fire like that. With a thin wall separating it from the dump where the Manhattan Project waste was buried.
But I was told it was nothing to worry about..,
I know a man who travels around the world putting out coal seam fires and being paid in carbon credits. (As putting out the fire stops the CO2/CO emissions.) He made about £5m last year and probably only worked 120 days.
1939 being when World War II started and the US both ramped up its own preparations and started supplying goods for the Allies and benefited from large military orders, before becoming directly involved in the war in 1941. Roosevelt died in 1945. I rest my case.
Lol! Take a look at US GDP changes in the 10 years to 1939:
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
Be very interesting to see how the Leicester lockdown will work. As I write above, you can get on a train at Leicester station and be standing at the bar in Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem, Nottingham, in 30 minutes. So you have pretty much every pub in central Nottingham within very easy reach. If young people had been planning a pub day on Saturday, what’s stopping them doing that? Are they going to prevent people getting on the train?
Be very interesting indeed to see how it works. It’s something of a testbed for the local lockdown model.
Pubs showing Leicester play CP on Sky might be busy, but I suspect hard to find in Nottingham...
Lots of pubs will show it - Derby vs Forest is the early kick off and Notts aren’t playing again until the playoffs start. It’s up against the Utd game but some pubs will show both.
Isn’t it the case that pubs are not allowed to show sports on TV when they reopen, pretty sure that was one of the conditions?
Please help a simpleton out. Presuming the government can borrow at lower rates than private institutions what is the point of the assorted PFI schemes.
The debt is still owed right? Its just shuffled around a little.
Accounting.
Under Major it was a slightly theoretical way of bringing the private sector into operating contracts for assets that couldn’t be sold (a type of privatisation) but was pretty small scale
Brown saw it as a way to spend more than he promised to because someone else paid the upfront and then made oodles of cash for years to come.
There was a company that tried that in the private sector. It was called Enron. I wonder what happened to them?
I've heard it described as like a credit card - fine to transfer small amounts in time (for short periods). Start living off it....
A CFO would have been locked up.
Brown spent money but claimed it wasn’t part of the national debt therefore he was living within his budget
A friend works in private banking - the stories he tells me, convince me that 90% of the allegedly wealth actually own 1% of their apparent assets.
Bricks of credit cards rotating the balances, mortgages on top of mortgage.
Then they come in and want to borrow more. To live on....
Buy a yacht 50m. Borrow 25m against it at very low interest rates as it is very secure. Rinse and repeat
But I guess it depends which private bank your friend works at...
More like - by the yacht on £50 million loan. Then it turns out the yacht was really £40 million. £5 million was to keep the life style rolling. £5 million probably went to the yacht broker who set the whole thing up, complete with inflated price....
Oh. One of those banks...
No - you'd be surprised. He was bought in to deal with a problem. And found waaaay more than that.
On-topic, if HMG were to make it easier to find orphaned or forgotten pensions, it might persuade the lucky owners to consolidate them into an infrastructure-linked fund. One other pension-related possibility is for HMG to provide annuities at better than commercial rates and treat the investments as loans for infrastructure. I do not know if this would pay for itself by reducing benefit claims. On whether the public can rely on a flow of payments, surely HMG could issue bonds rather than equities?
1939 being when World War II started and the US both ramped up its own preparations and started supplying goods for the Allies and benefited from large military orders, before becoming directly involved in the war in 1941. Roosevelt died in 1945. I rest my case.
Lol! Take a look at US GDP changes in the 10 years to 1939:
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
It's a bit of a counterfactual, isn't it? How do you know the economy wouldn't have grown even faster without FDR?
Be very interesting to see how the Leicester lockdown will work. As I write above, you can get on a train at Leicester station and be standing at the bar in Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem, Nottingham, in 30 minutes. So you have pretty much every pub in central Nottingham within very easy reach. If young people had been planning a pub day on Saturday, what’s stopping them doing that? Are they going to prevent people getting on the train?
Be very interesting indeed to see how it works. It’s something of a testbed for the local lockdown model.
Pubs showing Leicester play CP on Sky might be busy, but I suspect hard to find in Nottingham...
Lots of pubs will show it - Derby vs Forest is the early kick off and Notts aren’t playing again until the playoffs start. It’s up against the Utd game but some pubs will show both.
Isn’t it the case that pubs are not allowed to show sports on TV when they reopen, pretty sure that was one of the conditions?
You are possibly correct, dunno. In which case @Foxy is right although probably not for the reasons he thought!
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
Please help a simpleton out. Presuming the government can borrow at lower rates than private institutions what is the point of the assorted PFI schemes.
The debt is still owed right? Its just shuffled around a little.
Accounting.
Under Major it was a slightly theoretical way of bringing the private sector into operating contracts for assets that couldn’t be sold (a type of privatisation) but was pretty small scale
Brown saw it as a way to spend more than he promised to because someone else paid the upfront and then made oodles of cash for years to come.
There was a company that tried that in the private sector. It was called Enron. I wonder what happened to them?
I've heard it described as like a credit card - fine to transfer small amounts in time (for short periods). Start living off it....
A CFO would have been locked up.
Brown spent money but claimed it wasn’t part of the national debt therefore he was living within his budget
A friend works in private banking - the stories he tells me, convince me that 90% of the allegedly wealth actually own 1% of their apparent assets.
Bricks of credit cards rotating the balances, mortgages on top of mortgage.
Then they come in and want to borrow more. To live on....
Buy a yacht 50m. Borrow 25m against it at very low interest rates as it is very secure. Rinse and repeat
But I guess it depends which private bank your friend works at...
More like - by the yacht on £50 million loan. Then it turns out the yacht was really £40 million. £5 million was to keep the life style rolling. £5 million probably went to the yacht broker who set the whole thing up, complete with inflated price....
Be very interesting to see how the Leicester lockdown will work. As I write above, you can get on a train at Leicester station and be standing at the bar in Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem, Nottingham, in 30 minutes. So you have pretty much every pub in central Nottingham within very easy reach. If young people had been planning a pub day on Saturday, what’s stopping them doing that? Are they going to prevent people getting on the train?
Be very interesting indeed to see how it works. It’s something of a testbed for the local lockdown model.
Pubs showing Leicester play CP on Sky might be busy, but I suspect hard to find in Nottingham...
Lots of pubs will show it - Derby vs Forest is the early kick off and Notts aren’t playing again until the playoffs start. It’s up against the Utd game but some pubs will show both.
Isn’t it the case that pubs are not allowed to show sports on TV when they reopen, pretty sure that was one of the conditions?
So. They're 're opening on what is branded Super Saturday. With 4 back to back live Premier League games on. And they aren't gonna show it? Dream on.
1939 being when World War II started and the US both ramped up its own preparations and started supplying goods for the Allies and benefited from large military orders, before becoming directly involved in the war in 1941. Roosevelt died in 1945. I rest my case.
Lol! Take a look at US GDP changes in the 10 years to 1939:
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
It's a bit of a counterfactual, isn't it? How do you know the economy wouldn't have grown even faster without FDR?
I can't answer that of course. This link contains an interesting table though: average growth rate for each President.
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
The GDP figures say otherwise.
The argument’s a bit more complicated than that. From recollection (about 20 years...) it’s to do with a short term stimulus that had very limited real benefit (no economic multiplier) and cost a huge amount. Plus a vast amount siphoned off to corrupt pals.
I’ve not read this article, and I’m guessing from the name of the organisation that they have a particular worldview... but there is scope for argument (the second link is more basic and balanced)
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
The GDP figures say otherwise.
With all due respect Benpointer, the annual numbers are slightly misleading. The economy had started to grow again late in the Hoover adminstration and at the beginning of FDR's.
When he took over, he initially made a number of missteps that resulted in the US banking system basically collapsing. He only began to dig the US out of that hole at the end of 1933
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
The GDP figures say otherwise.
The argument’s a bit more complicated than that. From recollection (about 20 years...) it’s to do with a short term stimulus that had very limited real benefit (no economic multiplier) and cost a huge amount. Plus a vast amount siphoned off to corrupt pals.
I’ve not read this article, and I’m guessing from the name of the organisation that they have a particular worldview... but there is scope for argument (the second link is more basic and balanced)
Well, now we're debating whether FDR's New Deal had much of a positive impact. But this started with Hannan's ridiculous assertion in his tweet that FDR turned a recession into the Depression. It was that latter point I was refuting.
1939 being when World War II started and the US both ramped up its own preparations and started supplying goods for the Allies and benefited from large military orders, before becoming directly involved in the war in 1941. Roosevelt died in 1945. I rest my case.
Lol! Take a look at US GDP changes in the 10 years to 1939:
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
It's a bit of a counterfactual, isn't it? How do you know the economy wouldn't have grown even faster without FDR?
I can't answer that of course. This link contains an interesting table though: average growth rate for each President.
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
The GDP figures say otherwise.
The argument’s a bit more complicated than that. From recollection (about 20 years...) it’s to do with a short term stimulus that had very limited real benefit (no economic multiplier) and cost a huge amount. Plus a vast amount siphoned off to corrupt pals.
I’ve not read this article, and I’m guessing from the name of the organisation that they have a particular worldview... but there is scope for argument (the second link is more basic and balanced)
Well, now we're debating whether FDR's New Deal had much of a positive impact. But this started with Hannan's ridiculous assertion in his tweet that FDR turned a recession into the Depression. It was that latter point I was refuting.
The Great Depression was in full swing under Hoover. On this, we agree.
Yes, that's what we do when it gets hot in Britain. Hundreds of us head for the nearest brook to cavort, and in Scotland they go to the burns to caper about.
Just yesterday I saw 700 Britons gambolling in a rill
Yes, that's what we do when it gets hot in Britain. Hundreds of us head for the nearest brook to cavort, and in Scotland they go to the burns to caper about.
Just yesterday I saw 700 Britons gambolling in a rill
1939 being when World War II started and the US both ramped up its own preparations and started supplying goods for the Allies and benefited from large military orders, before becoming directly involved in the war in 1941. Roosevelt died in 1945. I rest my case.
Lol! Take a look at US GDP changes in the 10 years to 1939:
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
It's a bit of a counterfactual, isn't it? How do you know the economy wouldn't have grown even faster without FDR?
Post-Hoover number that stands out above is -3.3% in 1938, a year of major downturn. IRC this was due to FDR trying to reduce the deficit by cutting spending. Think the main economic mistake of New Deal was not spending enough. Reckon that a Republican (or conservative Democrat like Al Smith) in the presidency would NOT have spent more, would have spent less.
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
The GDP figures say otherwise.
With all due respect Benpointer, the annual numbers are slightly misleading. The economy had started to grow again late in the Hoover adminstration and at the beginning of FDR's.
When he took over, he initially made a number of missteps that resulted in the US banking system basically collapsing. He only began to dig the US out of that hole at the end of 1933
When he took over in March 1933?
From Wiki:
"Roosevelt was elected in November 1932 but, like his predecessors, did not take office until the following March. After the election, President Hoover sought to convince Roosevelt to renounce much of his campaign platform and to endorse the Hoover administration's policies.[144] Roosevelt refused Hoover's request to develop a joint program to stop the downward economic spiral, claiming that it would tie his hands and that Hoover had all the power to act if necessary.[145] The economy spiraled downward until the banking system began a complete nationwide shutdown as Hoover's term ended.[146] "
and
"On his second day in office, Roosevelt declared a four-day national "bank holiday" and called for a special session of Congress to start March 9, on which date Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act.[154] The act, which was based on a plan developed by the Hoover administration and Wall Street bankers, gave the president the power to determine the opening and closing of banks and authorized the Federal Reserve Banks to issue banknotes.[155] The ensuing "First 100 Days" of the 73rd United States Congress saw an unprecedented amount of legislation[156] and set a benchmark against which future presidents would be compared.[157] When the banks reopened on Monday, March 15, stock prices rose by 15 percent and bank deposits exceeded withdrawals, thus ending the bank panic.[158]"
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
Yes, that's what we do when it gets hot in Britain. Hundreds of us head for the nearest brook to cavort, and in Scotland they go to the burns to caper about.
Just yesterday I saw 700 Britons gambolling in a rill
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
How many people could drink 6 pints through a mask?
Yes, that's what we do when it gets hot in Britain. Hundreds of us head for the nearest brook to cavort, and in Scotland they go to the burns to caper about.
Just yesterday I saw 700 Britons gambolling in a rill
1939 being when World War II started and the US both ramped up its own preparations and started supplying goods for the Allies and benefited from large military orders, before becoming directly involved in the war in 1941. Roosevelt died in 1945. I rest my case.
Lol! Take a look at US GDP changes in the 10 years to 1939:
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
Eh?
I didn't say Roosevelt turned the recession into the Great Depression, I said it was World War II that got the US out of the hole.
As others have mentioned, an important factor was when Roosevelt took over in the economic cycle. By 1937, GDP growth was coming off and had declined in 1938.
It wasn't Roosevelt's actions (probably) that led to the growth from 1939 onwards, it was WW II (and definitely the case from 1941 onwards)
Yes, that's what we do when it gets hot in Britain. Hundreds of us head for the nearest brook to cavort, and in Scotland they go to the burns to caper about.
Just yesterday I saw 700 Britons gambolling in a rill
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
The GDP figures say otherwise.
With all due respect Benpointer, the annual numbers are slightly misleading. The economy had started to grow again late in the Hoover adminstration and at the beginning of FDR's.
When he took over, he initially made a number of missteps that resulted in the US banking system basically collapsing. He only began to dig the US out of that hole at the end of 1933
When he took over in March 1933?
From Wiki:
"Roosevelt was elected in November 1932 but, like his predecessors, did not take office until the following March. After the election, President Hoover sought to convince Roosevelt to renounce much of his campaign platform and to endorse the Hoover administration's policies.[144] Roosevelt refused Hoover's request to develop a joint program to stop the downward economic spiral, claiming that it would tie his hands and that Hoover had all the power to act if necessary.[145] The economy spiraled downward until the banking system began a complete nationwide shutdown as Hoover's term ended.[146] "
and
"On his second day in office, Roosevelt declared a four-day national "bank holiday" and called for a special session of Congress to start March 9, on which date Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act.[154] The act, which was based on a plan developed by the Hoover administration and Wall Street bankers, gave the president the power to determine the opening and closing of banks and authorized the Federal Reserve Banks to issue banknotes.[155] The ensuing "First 100 Days" of the 73rd United States Congress saw an unprecedented amount of legislation[156] and set a benchmark against which future presidents would be compared.[157] When the banks reopened on Monday, March 15, stock prices rose by 15 percent and bank deposits exceeded withdrawals, thus ending the bank panic.[158]"
Yes, that's what we do when it gets hot in Britain. Hundreds of us head for the nearest brook to cavort, and in Scotland they go to the burns to caper about.
Just yesterday I saw 700 Britons gambolling in a rill
The digital fog is clearing, and we can see the future landscape. A small number of huge "newspapers" will survive and thrive, all the others will die.
In Britain I reckon that's the Times the Guardian and the Mail. I am not sure any of the others will make it.
1939 being when World War II started and the US both ramped up its own preparations and started supplying goods for the Allies and benefited from large military orders, before becoming directly involved in the war in 1941. Roosevelt died in 1945. I rest my case.
Lol! Take a look at US GDP changes in the 10 years to 1939:
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
It's a bit of a counterfactual, isn't it? How do you know the economy wouldn't have grown even faster without FDR?
I can't answer that of course. This link contains an interesting table though: average growth rate for each President.
Could Trump become the first since Hoover to have a negative rate?
The biggest determinant of that number will not be your economic policies but where in the economic cycle you took over.
Maybe Napoleon was right about lucky Generals. My instincts are that Governments have very little impact on economies in Western democracies. They Love to pretend they have of course.
It’s been a long time since I read the economic analysis but there is an argument that some of his early moves extended the recession & that recovery didn’t really come until the war ramp up
The GDP figures say otherwise.
With all due respect Benpointer, the annual numbers are slightly misleading. The economy had started to grow again late in the Hoover adminstration and at the beginning of FDR's.
When he took over, he initially made a number of missteps that resulted in the US banking system basically collapsing. He only began to dig the US out of that hole at the end of 1933
When he took over in March 1933?
From Wiki:
"Roosevelt was elected in November 1932 but, like his predecessors, did not take office until the following March. After the election, President Hoover sought to convince Roosevelt to renounce much of his campaign platform and to endorse the Hoover administration's policies.[144] Roosevelt refused Hoover's request to develop a joint program to stop the downward economic spiral, claiming that it would tie his hands and that Hoover had all the power to act if necessary.[145] The economy spiraled downward until the banking system began a complete nationwide shutdown as Hoover's term ended.[146] "
and
"On his second day in office, Roosevelt declared a four-day national "bank holiday" and called for a special session of Congress to start March 9, on which date Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act.[154] The act, which was based on a plan developed by the Hoover administration and Wall Street bankers, gave the president the power to determine the opening and closing of banks and authorized the Federal Reserve Banks to issue banknotes.[155] The ensuing "First 100 Days" of the 73rd United States Congress saw an unprecedented amount of legislation[156] and set a benchmark against which future presidents would be compared.[157] When the banks reopened on Monday, March 15, stock prices rose by 15 percent and bank deposits exceeded withdrawals, thus ending the bank panic.[158]"
1939 being when World War II started and the US both ramped up its own preparations and started supplying goods for the Allies and benefited from large military orders, before becoming directly involved in the war in 1941. Roosevelt died in 1945. I rest my case.
Lol! Take a look at US GDP changes in the 10 years to 1939:
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
It's a bit of a counterfactual, isn't it? How do you know the economy wouldn't have grown even faster without FDR?
I can't answer that of course. This link contains an interesting table though: average growth rate for each President.
Could Trump become the first since Hoover to have a negative rate?
The biggest determinant of that number will not be your economic policies but where in the economic cycle you took over.
Maybe Napoleon was right about lucky Generals. My instincts are that Governments have very little impact on economies in Western democracies. They Love to pretend they have of course.
Until things go south, when remarkably they had nothing whatsoever to do with it,
Get credit in good times, avoid blame in bad times.
Yes, that's what we do when it gets hot in Britain. Hundreds of us head for the nearest brook to cavort, and in Scotland they go to the burns to caper about.
Just yesterday I saw 700 Britons gambolling in a rill
The digital fog is clearing, and we can see the future landscape. A small number of huge "newspapers" will survive and thrive, all the others will die.
In Britain I reckon that's the Times the Guardian and the Mail. I am not sure any of the others will make it.
No more Telegraph? I fear it did adore Boris Johnson much much more than its traditional readership ever would.
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Why do we though? I can understand the reluctance in part of the states because it has become politicised. Here we don't seem to be ideologically opposed we just can't seem to be bothered.
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Why do we though? I can understand the reluctance in part of the states because it has become politicised. Here we don't seem to be ideologically opposed we just can't seem to be bothered.
We need the government to clearly say 'you must wear a mask'. It's as simple as that.
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Why do we though? I can understand the reluctance in part of the states because it has become politicised. Here we don't seem to be ideologically opposed we just can't seem to be bothered.
I reckon it's a mixture of reasons:
British embarrassment: being the only one in a mask in Tesco makes you look a dick
British individualism: sod that, I'll be fine, no one is telling me what to do
British stupidity: I think masks don't work because I simply don't understand that they are meant to protect others, not me
It's depressing to see how partisan the New York Times has become recently.
But, as I say, it is very profitable.
I subscribe to NYT Cooking. It's genuinely excellent and well worth the $40/year.
Yes, some of the more peripheral journalism is superb. They have great visuals, they do fine data analysis, Travel, Lifestyle, all that - really good writers
But their basic news reporting has become wildly slanted, in quite an obvious way. It is polemical. Like the Mail or the Guardian. I mean, it was always a liberal bastion but now it is really in-your-face and some of the dishonesty is brazen.
And the foreign news reporting, which was once magnificent, is not quite what it was. To my mind.
Hopefully once Trump has gone, draining the madness that goes with him, and when the Woke Frenzy is over, so they don't have to genuflect, they can go back to being a fine paper overall. With all that money they will be hegemonic as a "newspaper" in America.
It's depressing to see how partisan the New York Times has become recently.
But, as I say, it is very profitable.
I subscribe to NYT Cooking. It's genuinely excellent and well worth the $40/year.
Yes, some of the more peripheral journalism is superb. They have great visuals, they do fine data analysis, Travel, Lifestyle, all that - really good writers
But their basic news reporting has become wildly slanted, in quite an obvious way. It is polemical. Like the Mail or the Guardian. I mean, it was always a liberal bastion but now it is really in-your-face and some of the dishonesty is brazen.
And the foreign news reporting, which was once magnificent, is not quite what it was. To my mind.
Hopefully once Trump has gone, draining the madness that goes with him, and when the Woke Frenzy is over, so they don't have to genuflect, they can go back to being a fine paper overall. With all that money they will be hegemonic as a "newspaper" in America.
I think it's simple: people these days don't want to read dry analysis without any slant or bias.
It's depressing to see how partisan the New York Times has become recently.
But, as I say, it is very profitable.
I subscribe to NYT Cooking. It's genuinely excellent and well worth the $40/year.
Yes, some of the more peripheral journalism is superb. They have great visuals, they do fine data analysis, Travel, Lifestyle, all that - really good writers
But their basic news reporting has become wildly slanted, in quite an obvious way. It is polemical. Like the Mail or the Guardian. I mean, it was always a liberal bastion but now it is really in-your-face and some of the dishonesty is brazen.
And the foreign news reporting, which was once magnificent, is not quite what it was. To my mind.
Hopefully once Trump has gone, draining the madness that goes with him, and when the Woke Frenzy is over, so they don't have to genuflect, they can go back to being a fine paper overall. With all that money they will be hegemonic as a "newspaper" in America.
I think it's simple: people these days don't want to read dry analysis without any slant or bias.
Yep. They want to be angered, or outraged, or have burning convictions confirmed
It is maybe another malign effect of social media.
On Twitter or 4Chan or Facebook you can spend the day getting pleasurably worked up - infuriated and aroused, drenched wit dopamine hits - as you read news that makes you orgasmically flip out
Newspapers are learning to compete by providing the same stimuli
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Why do we though? I can understand the reluctance in part of the states because it has become politicised. Here we don't seem to be ideologically opposed we just can't seem to be bothered.
Perhaps because UKers have an long, proud tradition of personal freedom that knows no economic, ideological, political, sociological bounds.
Same in US. Yes, GOPers are playing politics, or rather Russian roulette - kinda ironic, eh?
BUT plenty of Democrats, Socialists, whatever are just as irritated by restrictions in a personal way. They just aren't making noise about it. IF Trumpsky & GOP would get off the soapbox, would likely hear more push-back from pointy-headed lefties.
For example, here in Seattle toooo many folks are NOT wearing masks when they should, which is anytime they are within 6 feet of yours truly. Find the best way of grabbing their attention is by accusing them of being Trump supporters - since he's LESS popular than athlete's foot or a bounced check in these parts.
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Why do we though? I can understand the reluctance in part of the states because it has become politicised. Here we don't seem to be ideologically opposed we just can't seem to be bothered.
Perhaps because UKers have an long, proud tradition of personal freedom that knows no economic, ideological, political, sociological bounds.
Same in US. Yes, GOPers are playing politics, or rather Russian roulette - kinda ironic, eh?
BUT plenty of Democrats, Socialists, whatever are just as irritated by restrictions in a personal way. They just aren't making noise about it. IF Trumpsky & GOP would get off the soapbox, would likely hear more push-back from pointy-headed lefties.
For example, here in Seattle toooo many folks are NOT wearing masks when they should, which is anytime they are within 6 feet of yours truly. Find the best way of grabbing their attention is by accusing them of being Trump supporters - since he's LESS popular than athlete's foot or a bounced check in these parts.
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Why do we though? I can understand the reluctance in part of the states because it has become politicised. Here we don't seem to be ideologically opposed we just can't seem to be bothered.
I feel like people think unless you start out with a lot of mask wearing it wont make huge amounts of difference, and we never have so impact is slight . But that's just a guess I cannot think of why wed be more reluctant thdn others.
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Why do we though? I can understand the reluctance in part of the states because it has become politicised. Here we don't seem to be ideologically opposed we just can't seem to be bothered.
Perhaps because UKers have an long, proud tradition of personal freedom that knows no economic, ideological, political, sociological bounds.
Same in US. Yes, GOPers are playing politics, or rather Russian roulette - kinda ironic, eh?
BUT plenty of Democrats, Socialists, whatever are just as irritated by restrictions in a personal way. They just aren't making noise about it. IF Trumpsky & GOP would get off the soapbox, would likely hear more push-back from pointy-headed lefties.
For example, here in Seattle toooo many folks are NOT wearing masks when they should, which is anytime they are within 6 feet of yours truly. Find the best way of grabbing their attention is by accusing them of being Trump supporters - since he's LESS popular than athlete's foot or a bounced check in these parts.
Re infrastructure, it is one of the big black marks against Trump this time around. Simply, the pace of infrastructure spending has gone backwards in the US in the last four years. In real terms, America spends less than half it did in 1988 at the end of Reagan's term.
It's ironic, because this was probably an area where Trump could have gotten bipartisan support for doing stuff.
And incredible stealing opportunities, too. Weird how he dropped this one.
Bars, clubs and gyms is not exactly a total lockdown.
Not yet
I wouldn't mind betting that pubs (inside at least) will shut again before August. Hardly anybody is bothering with masks or social distancing inside shops as it is Once the pubs reopen you may as well throw in the towel and wait for the next lockdown to come along.
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
The British have some of the lowest levels of mask wearing in the world.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
Why do we though? I can understand the reluctance in part of the states because it has become politicised. Here we don't seem to be ideologically opposed we just can't seem to be bothered.
I feel like people think unless you start out with a lot of mask wearing it wont make huge amounts of difference, and we never have so impact is slight . But that's just a guess I cannot think of why wed be more reluctant thdn others.
However, note subsets are pretty small, largest subset is only 83 (NW England) so margins of error for areas shown are pretty high.
Perhaps the REAL sauce winner is Mikey D's Special? Will take that as a tribute to your American cousins - though personally would rather douse by burger & fries with axle grease.
Of the options listed, would like to try mushy peas, are they any good?
Re infrastructure, it is one of the big black marks against Trump this time around. Simply, the pace of infrastructure spending has gone backwards in the US in the last four years. In real terms, America spends less than half it did in 1988 at the end of Reagan's term.
It's ironic, because this was probably an area where Trump could have gotten bipartisan support for doing stuff.
And incredible stealing opportunities, too. Weird how he dropped this one.
Trump looks more and more incapable of holding the simplest of passes
It's depressing to see how partisan the New York Times has become recently.
But, as I say, it is very profitable.
I subscribe to NYT Cooking. It's genuinely excellent and well worth the $40/year.
Yes, some of the more peripheral journalism is superb. They have great visuals, they do fine data analysis, Travel, Lifestyle, all that - really good writers
But their basic news reporting has become wildly slanted, in quite an obvious way. It is polemical. Like the Mail or the Guardian. I mean, it was always a liberal bastion but now it is really in-your-face and some of the dishonesty is brazen.
And the foreign news reporting, which was once magnificent, is not quite what it was. To my mind.
Hopefully once Trump has gone, draining the madness that goes with him, and when the Woke Frenzy is over, so they don't have to genuflect, they can go back to being a fine paper overall. With all that money they will be hegemonic as a "newspaper" in America.
I think it's simple: people these days don't want to read dry analysis without any slant or bias.
Yep. They want to be angered, or outraged, or have burning convictions confirmed
It is maybe another malign effect of social media.
On Twitter or 4Chan or Facebook you can spend the day getting pleasurably worked up - infuriated and aroused, drenched wit dopamine hits - as you read news that makes you orgasmically flip out
Newspapers are learning to compete by providing the same stimuli
It's depressing to see how partisan the New York Times has become recently.
But, as I say, it is very profitable.
I subscribe to NYT Cooking. It's genuinely excellent and well worth the $40/year.
Yes, some of the more peripheral journalism is superb. They have great visuals, they do fine data analysis, Travel, Lifestyle, all that - really good writers
But their basic news reporting has become wildly slanted, in quite an obvious way. It is polemical. Like the Mail or the Guardian. I mean, it was always a liberal bastion but now it is really in-your-face and some of the dishonesty is brazen.
And the foreign news reporting, which was once magnificent, is not quite what it was. To my mind.
Hopefully once Trump has gone, draining the madness that goes with him, and when the Woke Frenzy is over, so they don't have to genuflect, they can go back to being a fine paper overall. With all that money they will be hegemonic as a "newspaper" in America.
I think it's simple: people these days don't want to read dry analysis without any slant or bias.
Yep. They want to be angered, or outraged, or have burning convictions confirmed
It is maybe another malign effect of social media.
On Twitter or 4Chan or Facebook you can spend the day getting pleasurably worked up - infuriated and aroused, drenched wit dopamine hits - as you read news that makes you orgasmically flip out
Newspapers are learning to compete by providing the same stimuli
Hence the public don't elect the bland option in GEs... the personality theory
Comments
You can make a good case that Roosevelt failed to end the Great Depression; Hitler did that, not just in Germany but in America. Though the latter was NOT to the Fuhrer's advantage, to put it most mildly.
But STARTING it? Well, not even Herbert Hoover's Swiss banker would believe THAT. Makes even LESS sense than the "backdoor to war" theory, which is also NOT born out by the historical record. Unless Gen. Marshall was Winston Churchill's secret agent and burned all the evidence!
It's ironic, because this was probably an area where Trump could have gotten bipartisan support for doing stuff.
In St Louis they have a fire like that. With a thin wall separating it from the dump where the Manhattan Project waste was buried.
But I was told it was nothing to worry about..,
Normally the civil service would carry out a "value for money" exercise before embarking on large projects.
There was once a time when the Conservative Party cared about value for money.
IF you're in Kansas City, that is.
Twitter
Follow Cambridgeshire Constabulary on Twitter @CambsCops
Follow Peterborough Police on Twitter @PboroCops
Follow Huntingdonshire Police on Twitter @HuntsCops
Follow Fenland Police on Twitter @FenCops
Follow East Cambridgeshire Police on Twitter @EastCambsCops
Follow South Cambridgeshire Police on Twitter @SouthCambsCops
Follow Cambridge City Police on Twitter @CambridgeCops
https://www.cambs.police.uk/information-and-services/About-us/Social-media
I 'aint holding my breath though with this shambles of an administration.
(I would note that this is not just a government problem. Firms try and shift capex and opex around all the time.)
1930 -8.5%
1931 -6.4%
1932 -12.9%
FDR becomes president
1933 -1.2%
1934 +10.8%
1935 +8.9%
1936 +12.9%
1937 +5.1%
1938 -3.3%
1939 +8.0%
How is that turning a recession into a Depression? The economy shrunk by 25% in the 3 years before FDR was elected and grew by 47% in his first two terms.
http://hurryupharry.org/2020/06/28/ten-little-corbynistas/
The government (all governments) isn’t willing to stand up to the mob.
And they aren't gonna show it?
Dream on.
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1277729838170886144?s=20
https://fortunly.com/statistics/us-gdp-by-year-guide/#GDP-by-Presidents
Could Trump become the first since Hoover to have a negative rate?
I’ve not read this article, and I’m guessing from the name of the organisation that they have a particular worldview... but there is scope for argument (the second link is more basic and balanced)
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fee.org/articles/fdrs-folly-how-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/amp
https://www.history.com/news/new-deal-effects-great-depression
When he took over, he initially made a number of missteps that resulted in the US banking system basically collapsing. He only began to dig the US out of that hole at the end of 1933
Break the rules, get banned. Not difficult.
Or do you think if you went into a shop and smashed it up, you'd still expect to be served?
"cavorting in our hundred by streams"
Yes, that's what we do when it gets hot in Britain. Hundreds of us head for the nearest brook to cavort, and in Scotland they go to the burns to caper about.
Just yesterday I saw 700 Britons gambolling in a rill
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1277729319079550982?s=20
From Wiki:
"Roosevelt was elected in November 1932 but, like his predecessors, did not take office until the following March. After the election, President Hoover sought to convince Roosevelt to renounce much of his campaign platform and to endorse the Hoover administration's policies.[144] Roosevelt refused Hoover's request to develop a joint program to stop the downward economic spiral, claiming that it would tie his hands and that Hoover had all the power to act if necessary.[145] The economy spiraled downward until the banking system began a complete nationwide shutdown as Hoover's term ended.[146] "
and
"On his second day in office, Roosevelt declared a four-day national "bank holiday" and called for a special session of Congress to start March 9, on which date Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act.[154] The act, which was based on a plan developed by the Hoover administration and Wall Street bankers, gave the president the power to determine the opening and closing of banks and authorized the Federal Reserve Banks to issue banknotes.[155] The ensuing "First 100 Days" of the 73rd United States Congress saw an unprecedented amount of legislation[156] and set a benchmark against which future presidents would be compared.[157] When the banks reopened on Monday, March 15, stock prices rose by 15 percent and bank deposits exceeded withdrawals, thus ending the bank panic.[158]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Presidency_(1933–1945)
So Scots feel the burn to cool off? Sounds like how it's "Up Down" in Norn Ireland!
The US seems to be panicking and finally getting serious about mask-wearing. Does anywhere else have the "can't be arsed" attitude that seems to be the norm here? I certainly can't think of anywhere.
They print any old crap now, as long as it gets those subscribers piling in, and it does.
It's very sad. American journalism, at the peak, used to set the standard for fact-checking and rigour. Not any more.
I agree there is a major risk the pubs might re-shut. How many people are going to stay 1.5m apart after 6 pints?
I didn't say Roosevelt turned the recession into the Great Depression, I said it was World War II that got the US out of the hole.
As others have mentioned, an important factor was when Roosevelt took over in the economic cycle. By 1937, GDP growth was coming off and had declined in 1938.
It wasn't Roosevelt's actions (probably) that led to the growth from 1939 onwards, it was WW II (and definitely the case from 1941 onwards)
Bet you £10 which side he voted for in Remain / Brexit....
Where is our FDR when we need one?
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2020-02-06/ny-times-publishers-4q-profit-grows-as-it-adds-subscribers#:~:text=The New York Times Co,up 12.7% to $38.55 Thursday.
The digital fog is clearing, and we can see the future landscape. A small number of huge "newspapers" will survive and thrive, all the others will die.
In Britain I reckon that's the Times the Guardian and the Mail. I am not sure any of the others will make it.
My instincts are that Governments have very little impact on economies in Western democracies.
They Love to pretend they have of course.
Get credit in good times, avoid blame in bad times.
This guy is dangerously dumb - and worryingly close to office.
That's what George C. McClellan said in 1864 when they were pimpin' for Abe Lincoln!
British embarrassment: being the only one in a mask in Tesco makes you look a dick
British individualism: sod that, I'll be fine, no one is telling me what to do
British stupidity: I think masks don't work because I simply don't understand that they are meant to protect others, not me
But their basic news reporting has become wildly slanted, in quite an obvious way. It is polemical. Like the Mail or the Guardian. I mean, it was always a liberal bastion but now it is really in-your-face and some of the dishonesty is brazen.
And the foreign news reporting, which was once magnificent, is not quite what it was. To my mind.
Hopefully once Trump has gone, draining the madness that goes with him, and when the Woke Frenzy is over, so they don't have to genuflect, they can go back to being a fine paper overall. With all that money they will be hegemonic as a "newspaper" in America.
It is maybe another malign effect of social media.
On Twitter or 4Chan or Facebook you can spend the day getting pleasurably worked up - infuriated and aroused, drenched wit dopamine hits - as you read news that makes you orgasmically flip out
Newspapers are learning to compete by providing the same stimuli
Same in US. Yes, GOPers are playing politics, or rather Russian roulette - kinda ironic, eh?
BUT plenty of Democrats, Socialists, whatever are just as irritated by restrictions in a personal way. They just aren't making noise about it. IF Trumpsky & GOP would get off the soapbox, would likely hear more push-back from pointy-headed lefties.
For example, here in Seattle toooo many folks are NOT wearing masks when they should, which is anytime they are within 6 feet of yours truly. Find the best way of grabbing their attention is by accusing them of being Trump supporters - since he's LESS popular than athlete's foot or a bounced check in these parts.
However, note subsets are pretty small, largest subset is only 83 (NW England) so margins of error for areas shown are pretty high.
Perhaps the REAL sauce winner is Mikey D's Special? Will take that as a tribute to your American cousins - though personally would rather douse by burger & fries with axle grease.
Of the options listed, would like to try mushy peas, are they any good?
Not over here - but got to go to Vancouver to cash one of those. Thank god for Webster's Dictionary, my spelling is bad enough as it is.