Posted on 09/09/2005 5:48:26 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
#60 - BULLS EYE!
And the price of everything, including food, is about to explode. Inflation will be the huge new tax increase that we will all pay. I recall the last energy-caused inflation during the awful Jimmah Carter years, when you watched grocery prices increase every week. My passbook savings at the local Savings and Loan were getting 18.5% interest though!
The legal residents of MS, AL, and LA need those jobs . .
Let me rephrase that to be a liitle more accurate:
"There will be a huge demand for illegal aliens during the reconstruction."
Better start getting the bi-lingual job foremen lined up now.
"Only when those wars are not fought on your country's soil."
so what was up with post war Japan and Germany?? guess they both did not know it was not supposed boost the economy.
Did the resources come from within or without to rebuild those countries? Were the people shipped off to another part of the world to await the rebuilding of their country?
"Did the resources come from within or without to rebuild those countries? Were the people shipped off to another part of the world to await the rebuilding of their country?"
Hmm, well does the US gov get money from bond holders across the world - if you understand that then the 1st question is mute.
People shipped off to another part of the world as in NO residents evacuations??do not understand that question if it is one..of course population dislocations took place in WWII much worse than a short drive in LA or TX. and if so so what? man power will be needed in NO and those who come may not be those who left as I said so what.
Mute? What does that mean?
In case you can't remember we didn't buy German or Japanese bonds - it was our money and resourced the helped them rebuild. You simply cannot make the parallel.
People shipped off to another part of the world as in NO residents evacuations??do not understand that question if it is one..of course population dislocations took place in WWII much worse than a short drive in LA or TX. and if so so what?
If yo intend to continue the welfare/nanny state as it was then, yes, ship everyone out until it is rebuilt then let them return to their newly built homes at our expense.
The people in Germany and Japan stayed and helped rebuild their homes. With our help.
....much worse than a short drive in LA or TX...
I thought the reason they couldn't evacuate is because they didn't have cars? You want them to commute to New Orleans from Houston, LA, Seattle, etc.?
man power will be needed in NO and those who come may not be those who left as I said so what.
I don't have the slightest idea what you are saying here.
In case you forgot, we didn't start WW II. We were attacked by Japan on Dec 7, 1941 followed a few days later by Germany's declaration of war against us. We entered the war reluctantly and rather late. Japan had already occupied Manchuria in 1932 and invaded China in 1937. The Germans invaded Poland in 1939.
No one is advocating starting wars to get out of economic depressions. WWII cost the world around 60 million lives and massive destruction of most of Europe and Japan. If you read the entire thread and my comments, you will understand the context of the discussion.
If you look at unemployment rates from 1940 to the Present, you will see that your assertion is incorrect. In 1940 the unemployment rate was 14.6% for persons 14 years and older and went down to 1.2% in 1944. The umemployment rate from 1946-48 remained fairly constant at 3.9%. It ballooned to 5.9% in 1949 and then started another major decline down to around 3% during the Korean War. The bottom line is that unemployment rates stayed considerably lower during and after WWII than during the Depression Era of the 1930s.
Here the implication is that war creates jobs and reduced unemployment. What is left out the equation is the millions of men that were conscripted and volunteered to go into the service. Many businesses closed and women were needed to replace those workers. And, most of the women were working in occupations to support the war which was funded, not by private enterprise, but rather the govt. and bonds which, of course, were future expenditures.
The reason that unemployment went up after the war is because those millions of men came back.
Of course, nobody does a check to make sure the workers from the day labor camp, by the CATHOLIC CHARITIES can work in this country illegally
For those of you who do not know, home depot and the catholic charities work together on placing illegal alien workers with licensed contractors.
When describing the impact WW II had on the US unemployment rate and our emergence from the Great Depression, that is exactly correct. It is not an implication. That does not mean that I am advocating wars as a solution for economic depressions. The negatives far outweigh the short term ecomomic gains. I was responding to an assertion that, "Ultimately, unemployment decreased despite WWII, not because of it."
What is left out the equation is the millions of men that were conscripted and volunteered to go into the service. Many businesses closed and women were needed to replace those workers. And, most of the women were working in occupations to support the war which was funded, not by private enterprise, but rather the govt. and bonds which, of course, were future expenditures.
Left out of whose equation? Certainly, not mine.
The reason that unemployment went up after the war is because those millions of men came back.
True, but the unemployment rate went up slightly and never approached the double digit unemployment rate prior to WWII. As I stated, "The bottom line is that unemployment rates stayed considerably lower during and after WWII than during the Depression Era of the 1930s."
You have elected to get involved in this discussion a day late and a dollar short. What's your basic point?
On a macro scale, and over time, these disasters are a "break-even" events -- there are winners and losers.
All the posts are available to see. What makes you claim that I'm "a day late and a dollar short"?
It did seem as though you were extolling war as a way out of recession/depression. In your earlier posts you never mentioned the cost of war: "The same holds true for wars. WWII lifted us out of the Depression." (from post #12) It was said without any qualifying statements - almost as if you see war as a solution to economic problems. If I am wrong, so be it.
Your post was a response to a sarcastic post about this idiot Chao's way of looking at billions of dollars of destruction and somehow claiming that will create a housing boom. Rebuilding is not boom. It is replacing not expansion. There is a major difference.
-- Richard Nixon
I made the last post (#55) of the thread on 9/9. You entered on 9/11 (post #56). Maybe you are just using another screen name for Shalom Israrel. People usually don't get involved days later in threads they have not participated in.
It did seem as though you were extolling war as a way out of recession/depression. In your earlier posts you never mentioned the cost of war: "The same holds true for wars. WWII lifted us out of the Depression." (from post #12) It was said without any qualifying statements - almost as if you see war as a solution to economic problems. If I am wrong, so be it.
You are wrong. Nothing I wrote could or should be construed as "extolling war." I served a year in Vietnam. I don't need to be lectured about the costs of war.
Your post was a response to a sarcastic post about this idiot Chao's way of looking at billions of dollars of destruction and somehow claiming that will create a housing boom. Rebuilding is not boom. It is replacing not expansion. There is a major difference.
I don't consider Chao to be an idiot nor do I take an alleged quote from a TV show as an accepted fact without knowing the truth and context of that statement. There is no doubt that billions of dollars in federal funds, insurance money, and private donations will help the region recover economically.
Currently, most of the Gulf Coast has been wiped out, which includes businesses and jobs. The rebuilt infrastructure could fuel future prosperity in much the same way that Germany and Japan rebuilt their industrial base giving them a competitive edge in the world economy. Nobody wants a major disaster or a war, but it is possible to make lemonade out of lemons. Replacing can lead to expansion and economic revitalization.
Okay.
Actually I get posts from people from up to six months later. It doesn't bother me it just adds to the discussion.
Maybe we should ask Mr. Robinson to delete threads after you have posted on them because there will nothing left to say after you have yours. HA HA.
That would be true of straight-up redistribution: if someone takes $100 from me and gives it to you, it's almost a wash economically. "Almost" because the cost in terms of the guy's time spent robbing me and paying you does represent a small "frictional" cost.
But in this case, it isn't quite a wash. First, the disaster destroys a house, and the economy is down one house. Then Uncle Sam robs me of the cost of a house, and transfers it to you, and you in turn rebuild your house. The redistribution part was again almost a wash, but the loss of a house is a net loss. To top it off, if the replacement house is better than the original, and you then allow it to deteriorate into the same quality as the original, there's a loss there. This will happen in NO, where they will rebuild poor neighborhoods with nice houses, which will quickly deteriorate into poor houses again.
For the first 5 or 10 years with this disaster fresh in people's minds, absolutely. By the time the next big storm hits, Katrina of '05 will be long forgotten and hurricane response will be just as incompetent and ill thought out as they were this time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.