once again the jokes write themselves...

Originally posted by manimtired:
mods!!! if i would to say the latter map was how people interpreted the map on crack id be racist!!! flag this and ban him!!!

only if you equated crack with a certain race

canadians mostly

oh hai

btw, does anyone have a good read or info on when the electoral college changes? i mean isnt there some amount of time when they re-figure out how many votes each state gets? i looked but couldnt find anything off the bat. i am assuming at some point they change, no?

nevermind, i done found it!

What are people still debating in this thread?

Originally posted by Doctor Hussein Doom:
What are people still debating in this thread?

to fair i think some interesting discussion going at the moment, but i'm choosing to stay out of the fray … looking back through this thread there was a times some interesting discussion going on too..

there are now some interesting stories from inside the campaigns that would be worthy of discussion, so many we can reconvene in the new year when we're all less burnt out…

one of the most moving things about this election result has been what it's meant for my african-american friends: it's a hopeful sign that they might finally be living in a truly post-racist america. pundits have said tons about what it might do for the future of race relations in this country, but the immediate effect has been undeniable. as one of my black friend's IM away message reads, "I can finally tell me kids they can grow up to be anything they want to be - and not feel like I'm lying". i've seen grown men cry with tears of joy about having a black president.

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
we can reconvene in the new year

Forum Party II!

wrong button

Originally posted by Mobius:
Interesting to note that the previous biggest drop following an election was after the 1932 election of Franklin Roosevelt. Of course at the time we were in the midst of the Great Depression. And of course he was elected 4 times and is considered one of our greatest Presidents. And his New Deal helped us emerge from the Great Depression.

I still think these figures are reflections on the market and have little if nothing to do with an actual reaction to the election. More like selling gains after a run-up towards the election (sell the news).

now that my account has been re-activated, i must respond to this statement. . .

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

and, to get myself in tip-top shape to discuss economic theory in times of economic panics, i am reading this-

<img src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KWZYnMjSL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" alt=" - " />

and yes, the drop last wednesday exceeded the one day drop after the election of FDR in 1932. but FDR didn't bring us out of the great depression, world war 2 did, and to argue otherwise is a serious lack of historical understanding. by all accounts, the depression ended in 1943, in the middle of WWII. . .a monkey could have been president at that time and the country would have come out of the depression…..the problem is the previous decade, where unemployment numbers during the 30s averaged near 18%; fdr's policies likely hurt more than help the economy. of course, i seriously doubt that another 4 years of hoover's policies would have done any better, mainly because hoover's policies were a new deal-lite, so to speak. after 1930 and hoover kicking out andrew mellon, social policies were economic policies. . .and did little to nothing to ease unemployment or the economy. . .

I didn't say FDR got us out of the great depression. but he also didn't get us into the great depression. a Great Depression is an economic, not a political occurance. As a political leader FDR took action to improve the conditions of Americans during the Depression and he helped restore America's confidence and optimism . . . and that cannot be underestimated. When conditions changed, we were ready.

Originally posted by Mobius:
I didn't say FDR got us out of the great depression. but he also didn't get us into the great depression. a Great Depression is an economic, not a political occurance. As a political leader FDR took action to improve the conditions of Americans during the Depression and he helped restore America's confidence and optimism . . . and that cannot be underestimated. When conditions changed, we were ready.

i think it can be argued whether his actions improved the situation. . .there is evidence to show that his policies made things much worse, economically. . .which means we either look at the economic actions of his presidency, which appear to have made things worse, or we can look at how he raised morale, which undoubtedly made things look better. so, you might not have a job, but he made you feel like the government was doing something, even if that something was making it even more difficult for you to get a job.

btw, the UCLA paper argues that FDR did put us into the great depression. . .the paper posits that BUT FOR FDR's economic policies, the country would have come out of the recession by 1934. . .FDR's policies hindered economic recovery throughout the decade, and only WWII finally brought the country out of the depression, and brought down unemployment rates. politics, in the role of government interfering in the market, can play a role in economics, often a disastrous one. fdr and the new deal is a classic example of that. . .

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, the UCLA paper argues that FDR did put us into the great depression. . .the paper posits that BUT FOR FDR's economic policies, the country would have come out of the recession by 1934. . .FDR's policies hindered economic recovery throughout the decade, and only WWII finally brought the country out of the depression, and brought down unemployment rates. politics, in the role of government interfering in the market, can play a role in economics, often a disastrous one. fdr and the new deal is a classic example of that. . .

FYI, that's one paper's academic interpretation of history. let's not take it for proven fact. isn't hard to dredge up 100 papers that "prove" that FDR got the country out of the recession with his policies.

Originally posted by sweetcell:
FYI, that's one paper's interpretation of history. let's not take it for proven fact. isn't hard to dredge up 100 papers that "prove" that FDR got the country out of the recession.

i'm not disputing the "FDR got the county out of the recession," but it wasn't so much due to FDR's policies, at least as implemented in the 30s, as much as it was he was president for most of WWII and changes to his economic policies as a result of hostilities that brought the country out of the depression. i'm pointing out, and the paper presented data and evidence, that FDR's policies did more harm to the economy during the 30s than help. the unemployment figures are but one evidence of that- unemployment under FDR never broke 10% until the run up to WWII in 1940, by that time, FDR had begun to back away from the pro-union/protectionist policies of the 30s realizing that a) it was likely the u.s. would need to get involved in the conflict and better start building and b) government was hurting more than helping create goods that could be sold to allies (lend-lease program). . .by finally untethering business from the various governmental-controlled aspects of the economy, the economy was finally able to start growing. . .

of course, numbers can be manipulated however one wants to. . .but, how one interprets these findings is going to be based on how one views the government- should the government be passive or active in the monitoring of the economy. guess where i sit?

The paper sounds interesting and worth reading. I'm very wary of revisionist history. Hindsight is 20/20, you're free to make conclusions that would not have necessarily played out as you predicted, and various factors, social and other, may not be fully appreciated. Some people argue that the Beatles were the worst band ever, you know.

Originally posted by Mobius:
The paper sounds interesting and worth reading. I'm very wary of revisionist history. Hindsight is 20/20, you're free to make conclusions that would not have necessarily played out as you predicted, and various factors, social and other, may not be fully appreciated. Some people argue that the Beatles were the worst band ever, you know.

yeah, i'm leery of revisionist history too. . .but that's mainly because original revisionist history was written by the left, such as howard zinn or eric foner. . .liberal revisionists take on the gilded age and its greed and corruption, conservative revisionists take on wilson, fdr and the warren court and the excesses of government interference. you say tomato, i say tomahto. . .

the truth is that the New Deal wasnâ??t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.â??s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious.

….

But the new administration should try not to emulate a less successful aspect of the New Deal: its inadequate response to the Great Depression itself.

Now, thereâ??s a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So itâ??s important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.

That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the â??30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful â??not because it does not work, but because it was not tried.â?

Read the rest for yourselves, or continue your silly argument, I don't care.

It's silly to claim that World War II got us out of the Depression as a way of arguing that Government spending a la the New Deal is ineffective. World War II is nothing less than the most massive public works program in history. The logical conclusion to draw is that had FDR been facing a peacetime scenario, he should have amped up Government spending even more.

Nothing short of a monstrous infrastructure program is what is needed now. Unparallelled, staggering government investment focused on the sectors of the economy which will breed the largest multiplier effects.

My vote is for huge investment in a high speed national rail network to rival the Interstate system in its scope, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to nuclear energy and green technology development. I would also devote renewed effort to boosting public education.

Finally I'd ship anyone who still thinks Ayn Rand offers serious insight into how our world works off to Gitmo. ;)

Originally posted by Doctor Hussein Doom:
It's silly to claim that World War II got us out of the Depression as a way of arguing that Government spending a la the New Deal is ineffective. World War II is nothing less than the most massive public works program in history. The logical conclusion to draw is that had FDR been facing a peacetime scenario, he should have amped up Government spending even more.

Nothing short of a monstrous infrastructure program is what is needed now. Unparallelled, staggering government investment focused on the sectors of the economy which will breed the largest multiplier effects.

My vote is for huge investment in a high speed national rail network to rival the Interstate system in its scope, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to nuclear energy and green technology development. I would also devote renewed effort to boosting public education.

Finally I'd ship anyone who still thinks Ayn Rand offers serious insight into how our world works off to Gitmo. ;)

who's ayn rand? yeah, i know who she is, but, honestly, i've never read her.

i can only assume that the rest of this post is a joke it's so preposterous.

it matters what government is doing restricting the free movement of capital and allowing business to operate efficiently. by propping up wages, setting prices and setting output, the government arbitrarily intervened in the market in the face of well settled economic theory. bernanke in his books blamed the Fed for restricting capital, which caused panic in the markets, but through FDR's policies of intervening and causing havoc most definitely hindered business from recovering after the panics.

for some reason, i would imagine the Keynes himself would question the wisdom of increasing government spending and adding onto our current deficits.