A nice bedtime story about modern capitalism

A testament to employee ownership, huh.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, as the A-man put it:

Buy companies, leverage them, pay yourself a dividend, and then go bankrupt.

Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: Use underpants as collateral for multibillion dollar loan.
Phase 3: Profit

• Link
• Report this comment

Agreed. It isn’t free enterprise that is at fault here. It is the ability to buy and sell without taking care of the organizational debt along the way. That should be illegal.
In addition, there may need to be regulations about how a company could be acquired.

• Link
• Report this comment

I have trouble whipping-up on the PE guys. I think the rubes in the musical chairs of Simmons are the bankers who made the loans and underwrote the bonds. They bough the PE guys’ pitch and now they are hosed – suckers.

The bankers who loaned to Simmons are a lot like the bankers who made subprime or liar loans to home owners. The bankers were more derelict than the borrowers.

At least with Simmons (as compared to home lenders or GM), the bondholders and equity positions are taking the brunt of the fallout. The tax payer is not having to bailout “the free market”.

• Link
• Report this comment

consider too, this wisdom:

Companies need reserves for bad times, in the form of cash on hand and spare borrowing capacity. PE firms, by contrast, hollowed out their charges, assuring failure if not very much went wrong. And in the real world of commerce, things go wrong all the time.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ah, yes, that bastion of objectivity, the NEW YORK TIMES.

• Link
• Report this comment

“But in the mid-1980s, Simmons caught the attention of a new type of investor. The businesses that stormed corporate America in recent years under the banner of private equity were not always called private equity firms.”

Sounds to me as if the Corp Officers started this snowball. I wouldnt pin the blame on WallStreet. Bottomline, and I agree, its the “indians” that ultimately pay.

That being said, and as am employee, its ones responsbility to be aware of what the company big-wigs are doing or not.

Big chief Wompum say “Where smoke there fire, so when necessary please walk to emergency exit…How”.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And more soldiers die daily in Obowo’s ‘war of necessity’ in Afghanistan, but for some curious reason we don’t see the flag draped coffins returning as we did a year ago.”

um. excuse me?? we saw flag-draped coffins a year ago??? I think not …

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7913890.stm

• Link
• Report this comment

I was thinking about getting a subscription to the NYT and since “Say What” calls it “that bastion of objectivity”, how can I go wrong?

• Link
• Report this comment

Sad story yes, but I did’nt see anything in the piece of any laws broken.

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal –

evidently Say What doesn’t know anything about Judy Miller, Ahmed Chalabi and the lead-up to the war (shhhhh … it’s a secret)

• Link
• Report this comment

(shhhhh … it’s a secret)

What’s really sad is, poor Say What is going to have to hand over his Online Conservative Beanie because he forgot to call it the “Treason Times.”

There, there. It’s going to be OK.

(one of these days I’m going to rant a bit about my recent experiences re-acquainting myself with the dead-tree NYT after going without for the better part of a decade. Let’s just say it’s been kinda mindblowing these past coupla Sundays…)

• Link
• Report this comment

N-GA – “Then when the company went bankrupt, the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) had to step in to try to help pay pensions earned by the employees.”

Correct. This is the part that gripes me.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

Your example of capitalism only shows the deficiency of your northern education.

And as far as this article’s demonization of private equity funds, these vehicles are only empowered by your cherished belief of a “progressive” income tax system.

How did you meet Roller Girl?

• Link
• Report this comment

I think the problem is that somewhere along the way, the concept of how to make money on stock has changed. Aren’t you supposed to invest in a company because you think it will make a profit, and therefore be able to pay a dividend? Over time, if the company is successful, the value of the stock you purchased will also go up, and you can sell the stock for a profit. But it seems that lately no one pays attention to the potential for dividends, unless it is for some short term jumbo pay-out based on a debt-driven ponzi scheme. The whole focus is on buying the stock with the intention of selling it in a few months, or, at most, in a couple of years.

• Link
• Report this comment

The AJC spends roughly a million dollars a week to stay viable, the entire “news” paper industry is begging to Washington for a bailout, can you say “pot meet kettle?”

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, we all know that all this bad mouthing of capitalism and such is just a communist plot.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey, wait a minute, isn’t Congress doing the same thing with the country – each administration squeezes more spending($) and more debt …

Not capitalism, it is greed. It is a commentary on how messed up our tax code is. With a Article I tax system, a flat tax or a fair tax, this would not seem as attractive to these types of greed merchants.

Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer –

if loving It’s a Wonderful Life is wrong … well, I don’t wanna be right … that movie (and Charlie Brown) are the 2 must-sees at our house …

• Link
• Report this comment

WASHINGTON – — Despite months of seeming ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched an intensifying behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea in the weeks just ahead.-TimesUK

Uh, I thought Republicans were the problem?

Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, Barak Hussein Obama!

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah roller girl lets wreak the place with guns, that will make things better.
we can be just like the middle east.
careful, don’t become the enemy

capitalism is not a form of govenment

• Link
• Report this comment

Sidebar — anyone know what the position on health care reform is by the 150 docs? or the criteria for the invitation? Is this a photo-op of more “yes men cheerleaders” or a “balanced” discussion?

But the doctors in the Rose Garden were all supporters of health care reform — and the invitation-only guest list drew heavily from Doctors for America, a grassroots organization that backs a government-run insurance option.

Roughly 98 percent of the group’s 15,000 members support a public insurance option, Doctors for America spokeswoman Megan Smith told FOXNews.com. She said roughly 40 of the 150 doctors who attended the meeting were from the organization.

Cherlin insisted that the doctors “were not invited based on their support for a public option.”

• Link
• Report this comment

The United States is at #13 on the best country to live (Interesting…yet, I can understand why!)

We are a country controlled by lobbyists, corporations and crooks.

Norway is #1 and as a third generation Norwegian who has travelled there, and spent considerable time there I can understand why.

The next twelve are Australia, Iceland, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Switzerland and Japan.

Woe is us.

• Link
• Report this comment

All I’m saying is fix it rollergirl don’t wreak it,goverment is not a thing of and in itself it’s just “we the people”. We are at war we will not survive if we start turning on ourselves.
We need to to take a good look at ourselves honestly as one nation and find a way to fix our shortcomings.

• Link
• Report this comment

jokerman –

what’s the criteria for “best country to live” – giving a cursory look at the list, they all have better leave policies, a greater focus on family and much better enjoyment of life …

• Link
• Report this comment

Capitalism is not perfect, but it is miles ahead of anything in second place.

In order to understand the case cited here, one must ask why was it sold the first time. My bet is that the mgt. at the time had a good grasp of their long term viability, and it didn’t look good. It is very difficult to manufacture in the US, especially if it’s highly unskilled labor as is the case here. With high labor cost, the third highest Corporate tax rate in the developed world, benefit cost etc. it is very difficult to compete with companies who manufacture outside the US. Some companies learned this quickly and moved their manufacturing out, or contracted it out. Others waited too late. I suspect Simmons was among the latter.

The age of unskilled manufacturing in this country is nearing it’s end, and without highly protectionist policies, we will not stop it. Even protectionist policies will not stop a global economy forever though.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tom you sound like you miss your manpanion W.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK and jokerman

Here is the guts of the article on the UN report. Get out of it what you want. I did some minor editing.

“Norway takes the number one spot in the annual United Nations human development index released Monday …The index compiled by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) ranks 182 countries based on such criteria as life expectancy, literacy, school enrolment and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. This year’s index was based on data from 2007
The top ten countries listed on the index are: Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Switzerland and Japan.
The United States ranks 13th, down one spot from last year.
…while Niger ranks at the very bottom, just below Afghanistan.”

• Link
• Report this comment

If think I will keep the US. Just saying.

• Link
• Report this comment

There is another assertion that “capitalism may not be perfect, but its the best thing out there” Americans toss this old cliche around but it is simply not correct. The reason that so many other nations are so much better off when it comes to standard of living is that they never really had pure capitalist models and they abandoned them for something that merges socialism and capitalism. They have taken the best of both, and in so doing have minimized the worse of both.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, you can’t make money the normal way anymore. If that co. just kept making mattresses no one would be able to buy them because most people don’t have a job or even a home anymore. So what’s Free Innerprize suppose to do? Well, Bookman told us what they do. You come up with another way of making money. You borrow a bunch of money and buy the co. and pocket what it’s worth and then sell the co. to people that will borrow a bunch of money and buy the co. and pocket what it’s worth and sell it to somebody else that’s willing to borrow a bunch of money. It’s kind of like the lottery. If you buy a winning ticket you’re going to make out like a bandit. But somebody’s going to buy a loosing ticket sooner or later.

Anyhow, to all the people squealing because they got left holding the bag I say picky, picky, picky. What are you, a Communist?

Have a good p.m. everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Europeans and other nations have realized that without labor, their is no capital. Historically, Marx got the economics correct, but the politics wrong. The analysis of how societies move from agrarian, to mercantile, to capitalist and onwards is basically correct. The capitalism model is that capital somehow magically came before work. Raw materials and money do not magically assemble themselves into products and services. That takes work.

• Link
• Report this comment

This reminds of some reading I did a while back about Cornelius Vanderbilt, who is considered the father of corporations. He acquired corporations and at one time controlled 1 of every 9 US Dollars in circulation. (That’s 3-4 times as rich as Bill Gates by standards of the day). However, when Vanderbilt took over a company, he took no salary. He took all the compensation in the form of stock dividends, guaranteeing that for him to get paid, the corporation had to turn a profit. Things have sure gotten away from that through time. Few stocks pay a dividend anymore; now it’s all about boosting the stock price to cash in at the Wall Street Casino.

If a company has been in business for decades, what does it really matter to the company what the stock price is. The company has long since issued all it’s stock so it really doesn’t affect the company whether the price is high or low. The CEO’s just set it up to tie their compensation to stock price, which led to move to boost the price that often aren’t in the long term interests of the company.

We’ve come to the point where corporations have all the protections of an individual but none of the liabilities. I don’t think that was the way it was supposed to be and I think it’s long past time we threw the money changers out of the temple. When the focus of the nation is to make money by swapping pieces of paper rather than producing goods, we are all in trouble.

I have no sympathy for the brokers and bankers; they deserve whatever they get. I do feel sorry for the long time Simmons employees who have lost their livelyhood through no fault of their own. N-GA’s comparison to Delta Airlines was a good one. Any long time Georgian remembers what a strong company Delta once was and how people would fight to try to get a job there.

It is impossible for any system to be self policing, be it capitalism, communism, or whatever. Any system that involves people has to have some regulations because there will always be some people who are ready, willing, and able to game any system.

• Link
• Report this comment

Unfortunately, the mass perception is reality. Main Street is getting shafted drastically. I mean by that that Geithner, Summers, Bernanke and Obama are not regulating hedge funds and modified derivatives, and focusing on effective consumer protection and WS in general nearly enough. Already, we have scores of WSJ and NYT articles (not the shill IBD of course) that the sins of the past are being repeated in spades. From Thomas Frank at WSJ:

Obama and the K Street Set
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443353532223162.html

You will see many more sad stories like Simmons’ serial roll-overs and squeezes.

The same NYT that Jay quoted ran a story

Too Rich Too Worry; Not In This Downturn
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03wealth.html

From Massacio:

“I’d say the first great crash of the 21st century was caused by those super-rich families, whose greedy search for impossible returns led to investments in pools of fake mortgage notes, wild-eyed gambling on the credit of other people, and the Ponzi schemes of Bernie Madoff.

And, as you are entitled to expect, there’s evidence for my assertion. Consider hedge funds. The rich people who threw money at these masters of the universe agreed to pay 2% of assets and 20% of returns for the purported expertise. You’d have to expect enormous returns to do better than a mutual fund, and indeed, it didn’t happen. In fact, the superrich seem to have lost confidence in this idiotic arrangement: assets under management by hedge funds dropped from $2.5bn to $1.3bn since last year.

What were those hedge funds doing with the money? One of their investments was pools of mortgages and debt instruments, Collateralized Mortgage Obligations and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CMOs and CDOs). Some of the funds bought CMOs and then sought protection by buying credit default swaps from the likes of AIG. Others wanted to bet against the pools, using credit default swaps and other complicated strategies, so their bank counterparties bought AIG credit default swaps. It was the CDS part that worked out, since taxpayers bailed them out of the AIG disaster.

The NYT tells us that Paul Sullivan “writes about strategies that the wealthy use to manage their money and their overall well-being.” This link carries you to a Wall Street Journal article which reports on a paper from the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard. The WSJ tells us:

Trickle-down economics, a centerpiece of conservative economic thinking for many decades, failed to deliver its promise of distributing wealth across the economy….

So, Mr. Sullivan of the New York Times, All the Opinions that are Fit to Print, where’s the evidence for your assertion about trickle-down?”

• Link
• Report this comment

We’ve come to the point where corporations have all the protections of an individual but none of the liabilities. I don’t think that was the way it was supposed to be and I think it’s long past time we threw the money changers out of the temple.

HD, by any chance have you been following the Citizens United v. FEC case? (See also this…)

Just wondering. Not that I have followed it all that closely, but conventional wisdom is that the Roberts court will likely issue a broad ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which would presumably open new floodgates of corporate influence over elected officials.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scooter

I think we could start by enforcing the regulations we already have. Other than throwing a lot of money at them in the bailouts, I can’t see that anything has really changed on Wall Street. They’re just waiting for the dust to settle and it’ll be right back to business as usual.

sfd

I haven’t been following that case but it’s interesting. In the real world, people with money are always going to have more influence than people without but I think we should try to level the playing field as much as we can.

• Link
• Report this comment

There are a lot of problems here, least of which is capitalism. In capitalism margins are called and debts have to be paid at the end of the day. That is not what happened here. This is a story of repackaging debt and sloughing it off on someone else, that is called corruption, not capitalism. If debts never get paid, capitalism doesn’t actually work.

BUT, I think the moral of the story is in the title. At least you admit you are against capitalism. Sorry, among the alternatives, I’ll stick with capitalism. Better that then getting your mattress from the government, where you have a choice of one shoddy made piece of crap by completely uninspired workers; and that’s if you are lucky. If not, you can just make a bed out of the one ply 300 grit toilet paper they sell you, or the currency which would be worth less than the actual toilet paper.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scooter

I’ll admit to not being an expert on Wall Street but from what I’ve read it’s a matter of opinion whether some of the things they were doing were against regulations or not. In my opinion, the whole derivitive thing is a shell game, which if it isn’t against regulations, should be.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Flip this house”?

That’s what the electorate decided to do in 2006…then again in 2008. Not much evidence that anything has changed now, is there? Now it’s the dems “flippin’ us the finger”.

On the eight-ball question. Regardless of what’s being said, Obama has done nothing more than postpone dealing with the Iranian crisis. Gasoline sanctions won’t work as long as Turkmenistan will be piping it in.

If Israel strikes, what will Obama do? Scratch?

He doesn’t have a “clue” ball to make the break.

One of the more interesting pieces to the puzzle is the evidence Netanyahu presented claiming Russian scientists and engineers are assisting Iran in the nuclear weapons program. As yet, the Russians have offered no response.

It’s Iran that’s running this table.

Should’a listened to….

ah never mind.

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal

October 5th, 2009
10:57 am

Why stop at the NYT. See if you can also become an insider at the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels

October 5th, 2009
11:10 am

Never had a beanie but you seem to know a lot about them. Please tell me your experiences with them.

Also, what was with your comment about your experiences with the NYT?

• Link
• Report this comment

There would be no middle class if the ideas of the current batch of middle class conservatives had existed in the 1930’s

They act as if they would have had the opportunity to start businesses, or have jobs that paid well if the free market had been given free reign in the 1930’s. Like employers would have willingly paid the salaries they pay now, offer the benefits they offer now, and “trickle down” what they trickle now.

The was no sign of it before the Depression and FDR putting the screws to big business and no sign that had Republicans had their way, that they would have. Most of those who whine about socialism would not own a home, would not have pension plans, would not have employer provided health insurance, without the government creating the conditions that make them part of every day life today. Conservative businessmen certainly were looking for reasons to give their employees more, but rather sought every chance to pay them less. And of course there would be no such thing as small business loans, mortgages to buy private houses was virtually non existent.

The middle class is the creation of big government, not the private sector. The private sector had to be threatened within an inch of its life to for this to have occured.

• Link
• Report this comment

More Republican B.S. about the new deal perpetuating the depression, The depression was virtually over two years before WWII began, the economy entered positive growth by 1938. That is, by defintion the END of a recession.

Had REPUBLICANS remained in charge there would have been NO middle class because basically there was none before the Depression. Home ownership required a FIFTY percent down payment, and the balance of the loan had to be paid off in ten years. 99 percent of Americans could not qualify for a home loan.

There was no such thing as “equity” in a home, the bank owned the entire smack until you made the last payment

Republicans, and in particular the right wing fools in the United States have NO idea of what life in America was like BEFORE FDR became president.

College education. Forget about it domain of the rich and no one else. Maybe one in a thousand Americans got a college education. Again college today is an FDR/Democratic creation.

There are NO squiggly lines after FDR became president. The economy starts moving out of the toilet Republicans put it into within 18 months of his being elected.

All Republican revisionism of the last few years is false. Between 1929 and 1932, Republican years, GDP dropped by 25 percent, Unemployment reached 24 percent.

As soon as FDR was elected the collapse slowed. The GDP fell by only 2.4 percent in his first PARTIAL year in office and started moving up every year afterwards.

What CAUSED the depression was three large tax cuts to the wealthy/ Between 1921 and 1925 Republicans dropped the top tax rate from 71 percent down to 25 percent in 1925. The resulting excess capital in the hands of the wealthy created a speculative real estate market, exactly like the recent one, and within 4 years of the tax cuts the economy collapsed. In his last act as president, Hoover raised the top marginal rate to 65 percent and Roosevelt benefited because in his first nine months as president the tax increased slowed the collapse of GDP

Lets see the economic record of the Republicans.

In the last two months of 1929, production will decline at an annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and personal income at 5 percent.

1930, GDP drops 9.4 percent

1931
No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.(the Republican let the markets do their magic theory)

A second banking panic occurs in the spring.

The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.

In the last full year of Hoover’s REPUBLICAN presidency:

1932
This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.
Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930.
10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total.
About $2 billion in deposits have been lost since 1929.
Money supply has contracted 31 percent since 1929.
GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.
Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.
Capital growth investments have dropped from $16.2 billion to 1/3 of one billion since 1929.
Farm prices have fallen 53 percent since 1929.
International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.

FDR is elected in November 1932, and is innaugurated in March of 1933. The results:

Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but is obsessed with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes’ advice to begin heavy deficit spending.
The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.

That is to say, that Roosevelt’s actions slow the depression SIGNIFICANTLY but his failure to do as Keynes recommends, does not totally reverse the fall.

1934

The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.

Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending. (the Swedes FULLY accept Keynes recommendations and do not worry about balancing the budget. Their depression was every bit as bad as America’s but they recover in 18 months by increasing government deficit spending to 45 percent of GDP)

1935

The Supreme Court declares the National Recovery Administration to be unconstitutional.
Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification Administration. (More)
Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act. (More)

Economic recovery continues: the GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and unemployment falls to 20.1 percent.

1936
The Supreme Court declares part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act to be unconstitutional.
In response, Congress passes the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. (More)
Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.
Germany becomes the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, through heavy deficit spending in preparation for war.

1937
The Supreme Court declares the National Labor Relations Board to be unconstitutional.
Roosevelt seeks to enlarge and therefore liberalize the Supreme Court. This attempt not only fails, but outrages the public.
Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.

1938
Congress passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Fair Labor Standards Act. (More)
No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to Roosevelt’s weakened political power.
The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5 percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.
Britain becomes the third nation to recover as it begins deficit spending in preparation for war.

1939
GNP rises 7.9 percent; unemployment falls to 17.2 percent.
The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to 1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming hostilities.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Republican cowpies.

FDR ended the Depression. Republicans had more than three years of trying it the Republican way. Letting the private sector handle it. Between 1929 and the March 1933, the Republicans did it the right wing way and the economy kept collapsing and collapsing.

Had FDR continued on the Republican DO NOTHING route, the Depression would have lasted longer. The Republican, Conservative way was tried and it FAILED. Not only did it fail it was responsible for PROLONGING the depression as long as it lasted. Had FDR been president in 1930, far less would have been needed FOR recovery because the economy would not have been driven down as far as Republicans allowed it to collapse.

Every full year of FDR’s policies saw positive growth in GDP and reduction of unemployment, except when Republicans overturned the New Deal for 15 months. The economy, by stopping the New Deal programs and reasserting Republican ideology drove the economy IMMEDIATELY back into recession.

Those are the facts, not the Sean Hannity/;Joe Goebbels propaganda.

Sweden, Germany and Great Britain got out of recession earlier than the U.S. for a single reason, they were more New Dealers than FDR was..

• Link
• Report this comment

Pat, do you ever get tired of being wrong.

Republicans repeat that revisionist history of the New Deal but NONE have ever provided a single FACT to back it up. They simply assert that had FDR done nothing, the economy would have gotten better on its own. But no economist has ever been able to do more than simply make assertions. Historically what we have is from September 1929-March of 1933, a perfect picture of what Republican economic theory does in a recession. Turns it into a depression. In fact we have proof that Republican tax policies of the first half of the 1920’s creating the market bubble of the last half of the 1920’s which cause the collapse of the speculative land investments which kicked off the market crash of 1929, which started the Depression. Stocks were being purchased based on credit given on the value of land owned by the investors. When the price of the land collapsed, their ability to pay the loans they took out to buy stock collapsed. Banks did not get paid back, the values of stocks collapsed. The perfect Republican theory disaster.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rush and Hannity are basically revisionists. The two UCLA theoreticians who claimed that FDR made the Depression last longer, also stated that had the Republicans who the depression started under been in charge, the Depression would have lasted even LONGER than it did under FDR.

That is where Rush and Sean are caught with their pants down. They only cited the part of the study they wanted to, not the actual facts. The original study faults FDR for NOT fully adopting Keynesian ideas and worrying too much about balancing the budget. Basically the study called for MORE New Deal not less.

• Link
• Report this comment

Unemployment % by year:

1929 (pre depression) 3.14

1930 8.67

1931 15.82

1932 23.53

FDR becomes president March 21, 1933

1933 24.75

1934 21.60

1935 19.97

1936 16.80

1937 14.18

1938 18.91

1939 17.05 World War II BEGINS…

1940 14.45

1941 9.66

U.S. enters WWII.

The facts bear out that every year Republicans were in charge, simply by allowing the “FREE MARKET” to operate and keeping government out of the economy, the result was catastrophic. Unemployment increased by 250 percent between 1929 and 1930, by almost 200 percent between 1930 and 1931, by fifty percent in between 1932 and FDR’s inauguration.

Under FDR Unemployment drops consistantly every year, and GDP enters positive territory after his first year. In most economic theory, you will not see unemployment reverse itself to pre depression levels until you make up all the GDP losses that occurred in the collapse. So FDR had to bring back the 25 percent of GDP that Republicans lost before job creation would replace all the Republican created losses.

• Link
• Report this comment

“FDR ended the Depression”?

N.J, You put such effort into your Left/Right, Republican/Democrat paradigm. It really is amazing you go to such detailed effort in support of what is, in reality, fascism.

I’d love to see you get together with a group of Austrians, who will be the first to reject your paradigm and in the end, tear you to pieces.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sounds like some of the financial doings that helped caused the current financial crisis.

• Link
• Report this comment