The 1920 Depression

KingCondanomation said:
Why don't we ever hear of the 1920 depression? Very interesting.
Not that I am praising Harding the man, but worth reading.

http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/the_harding_coolidge_prosperit.html


On April 12,1921, President Harding went before a contentious Congress and presented his program for economic recovery which he called "A Return to Normalcy". Harding's normalcy program consisted of the following measures.


1) A call for a national budget program (which was vetoed by his predecessor).
2) National debt reduction
3) Tax reduction


President Harding pushed hard for his program and got it passed by Congress in 1921. By late 1922, the economy began to turn around. Harding did not live to see it, but his normalcy program proved to be the foundation that Coolidge prosperity was built on. Harding's successor, Calvin Coolidge had the wisdom to stay the course and build on Harding's program.

The American people were the beneficiaries of the unprecedented prosperity of the 1920's. Unemployment was pared from its high in 1921 of 20% to an average of 3.3% for the remainder of the decade. The misery index which is a combination of unemployment and inflation had its sharpest decline in U.S. history under President Harding. The Gross National Product averaged 7% from 1924 to 1929. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920's. Harding slashed federal spending by two billion from Wilson's last year and Coolidge maintained that spending level of 3.3 billion per year for the rest of the decade.
The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts produced increased revenue that went to cut the national debt left by Wilson by one-third.
Click to expand...

Dano, this has been discussed many times before. The 1920 recession was a post-war correction of the hyperinflation of the economy during the war. It was also very simialar to the recession after 1945. It's stupid beyond all measure to compare it to the 2008 recession, which fit the pattern of the 1929 depression.
 
KingCondanomation said:
??? Lack of regulations, I've never heard any economist blame that, it was a severe stock market crash, with a loose money supply followed by heavy protectionism (ie: Smoot-Hawley).
Click to expand...

1. You know, Dano, your God, Milton Friedman's entire economic theory was based on the theory that the 1929 recession was turned into a recession because the fed tightened up and stopped printing money, setting of bank failures everywhere and forcing the economy to contract. The money supply fell by over 1/3 in the early years of the depression, and there was year after year of 10%+ deflation. Practically no one in economics is going to back you up on your claim that the feds looseness with money after 1929 caused the depression.

2. If you'll notice, dano, Smoot-Hawley was actually on a timescale after the 1920 post-war correction would've already been over. I seriously doubt that Smoot-Hawley had any great effect at all; global trade was already at a standstill. It didn't seriously change the unemployment trend lines, either. What would've been a disaster is if we would've kept our tariffs as they were while everyone else was raising them.
 
evince said:
Man oh man you are silly SF.

That shows significant opposition to the deregulations on the dem side and a locked step march of the Rs.

I dont care if dems did help it pass and Clinton signed it. There stupidity does not make it a Democratic party decades long goal.

Remember how the right treated Clinton his entire term even though he stepped acrossed the aisle to vote for this dog.

Trying to claim that because the dems got convinced OR BOUGHT into supporting these failed republican party tennent ideas does not make them part of the current Dem platform now does it?

Deregulation is at the HEART of the republican partys exsistance and every sane person knows this.

This country needs regulations to survive.
Click to expand...

Listen desh.... I never stated it was decades long goal. You simply continue to try to pretend that your party is somehow less responsible simply because some voted against the repeal. If you note, I started a thread acknowledging the Senators that voted against it. But that does not change the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of Dems in the Senate voted FOR the repeal. It does not change the FACT that the DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON SIGNED IT.

BOTH parties are responsible for this mess desh. No matter how many excuses you try to come up with.

If you look back at deregulation as mentioned earlier in this thread... it was also a component of Carter.

Just because the Reps in general may support deregulation more than the Dems does not absolve the Dems from their hand in it.

Regulation is NOT all good. Nor is it all bad. yet ignorant party hacks like you can't seem to comprehend this.

Now tell us Desh.... the DEMS have had COMPLETE control of ALL THREE HOUSES for 15 months.

If they were so concerned about this... why haven't they done ANYTHING?

Why have they not put Glass Steagall back in place?

Could it be because their 'leaders' like Dodd, Kerry, Schumer etc... ALL VOTED TO REPEAL IT????
 
The misery index which is a combination of unemployment and inflation had its sharpest decline in U.S. history under President Harding.
Click to expand...

I think this is actually a good point in contrasting the two types of recessions. The misery index in the 1920 recession was high because inflation and unemployment was happening at the same time. If you apply the misery index to 2008 and 2009, it paints the bizarre picture that the economy was better in 2009 in 2008, as the misery index decreased due to the deflation in the economy. Which makes it obvious that in many situations, the misery index is completely and totally useless as a measure - 2009 was obviously much worse of a year than 2008.
 
evince said:
Man oh man you are silly SF.

That shows significant opposition to the deregulations on the dem side and a locked step march of the Rs.

I dont care if dems did help it pass and Clinton signed it. There stupidity does not make it a Democratic party decades long goal.

Remember how the right treated Clinton his entire term even though he stepped acrossed the aisle to vote for this dog.

Trying to claim that because the dems got convinced OR BOUGHT into supporting these failed republican party tennent ideas does not make them part of the current Dem platform now does it?

Deregulation is at the HEART of the republican partys exsistance and every sane person knows this.

This country needs regulations to survive.
Click to expand...

also...

1) Clinton did not vote for this bill... he was PRESIDENT... he SIGNED it.

2) The Democrats were not 'tricked' into supporting this. They CHAMPIONED it.


Nevertheless, the bill did not lack champions, many of whom declared that the original legislation -- forged during the Great Depression -- was both antiquated and cumbersome for the banking industry. Congress had tried 11 times to repeal Glass-Steagall. The twelfth was the charm.

"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."
Click to expand...

"I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).
Click to expand...


"The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).
Click to expand...

"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."
Click to expand...

3) Again you twit... no one is saying that we don't need regulations. IT IS NOT AN ALL OR NONE SCENARIO YOU FUCKING MORON. Only idiots like you pretend that it is. I challenge you to name ONE.... JUST ONE... politician in DC that says we should eliminate ALL regulations.
 
evince said:
I dont care if dems did help it pass and Clinton signed it. There stupidity does not make it a Democratic party decades long goal.
Click to expand...
and yet a handful of morons around the TEA party activists makes the whole TEA party a bunch of mcveigh wannabes. could you be any more partisan?
 
evince said:
please show how the people who voted against this bill championed it?


The party that championed this bill is the one who voted for it overwhelmingly, the Republican party.
Click to expand...

The Democrats in the Senate voted 84% for the bill. Wouldn't that qualify as overwhemingly? (sp)

The Democrats in the House voted 75% for the bill. I think that qualifies as a pretty strong majority.

And a Democratic President signed the bill into law. It's not like he signed it against his party's wishes.

You're not doing a very good job of spinning your way out of this one Desh.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and yet a handful of morons around the TEA party activists makes the whole TEA party a bunch of mcveigh wannabes. could you be any more partisan?
Click to expand...

What she's saying is rhetoric is more important than action. Even though the Dems overwhemingly voted for the removal of Glass-Steagal and Clinton signed it it doesn't matter because Democrats are against deregulation. It doesn't matter if a Republican led Congress and a Republican President sign Sarbenes-Oxley regulations because Republicans are for deregulation.

Rhetoric not actions.
 
Bittermark said:
1. You know, Dano, your God, Milton Friedman's entire economic theory was based on the theory that the 1929 recession was turned into a recession because the fed tightened up and stopped printing money, setting of bank failures everywhere and forcing the economy to contract. The money supply fell by over 1/3 in the early years of the depression, and there was year after year of 10%+ deflation. Practically no one in economics is going to back you up on your claim that the feds looseness with money after 1929 caused the depression.
Click to expand...
Shit. When I said loose I thought I wrote tight. How embarassing. Milton Friedman is not my god, but you make his point above so well that you make him look more reverent than I ever have.

Bittermark said:
2. If you'll notice, dano, Smoot-Hawley was actually on a timescale after the 1920 post-war correction would've already been over. I seriously doubt that Smoot-Hawley had any great effect at all; global trade was already at a standstill. It didn't seriously change the unemployment trend lines, either. What would've been a disaster is if we would've kept our tariffs as they were while everyone else was raising them.
Click to expand...
Now this is pure unadulterated made up trademark watermark BS, the unemployment rate after the wall street crash was actually not that bad.
Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933

In times of crisis, especially long ago, politicians faced intense pressure to be protectionist, Smoot-Hawley is what set off so many other countries to impose similar tariffs and trade declined and with it jobs.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yes means no, when the letter D comes after your name according to desh.
Click to expand...

WTF?


are you insane read the yeas and nays


Vote
[Sort] State
[Sort] Representative
[Sort by Name] [Sort by Party]
Alabama
Yea AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Yea AL Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Yea AK Murkowski, Frank [R]
Yea AK Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Yea AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Yea AZ McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Yea AR Hutchinson, Tim [R]
Nay AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]
California
Nay CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Nay CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Colorado
Yea CO Allard, Wayne [R]
Yea CO Campbell, Ben [R]
Connecticut
Nay CT Dodd, Christopher [D]
Nay CT Lieberman, Joseph [D]
Delaware
Nay DE Biden, Joseph [D]
Yea DE Roth, William [?]
Florida
Nay FL Graham, Bob [D]
Yea FL Mack, Connie [?]
Georgia
Nay GA Cleland, J. [D]
Yea GA Coverdell, Paul [?]
Hawaii
Nay HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Nay HI Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Yea ID Craig, Larry [R]
Yea ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Nay IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Present IL Fitzgerald, Peter [R]
Indiana
Nay IN Bayh, Evan [D]
Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]
Iowa
Yea IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Yea KS Brownback, Samuel [R]
Yea KS Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Yea KY Bunning, Jim [R]
Yea KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Nay LA Breaux, John [D]
Nay LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Maine
Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]
Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]
Maryland
Nay MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Nay MD Sarbanes, Paul [D]
Massachusetts
Nay MA Kennedy, Edward [D]
Nay MA Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Yea MI Abraham, Spencer [?]
Nay MI Levin, Carl [D]
Minnesota
Yea MN Grams, Rod [?]
Nay MN Wellstone, Paul [D]
Mississippi
Yea MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Yea MS Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Yea MO Ashcroft, John [?]
Yea MO Bond, Christopher [R]
Montana
Nay MT Baucus, Max [D]
Yea MT Burns, Conrad [R]
Nebraska
Yea NE Hagel, Charles [R]
Nay NE Kerrey, J. [?]
Nevada
Nay NV Bryan, Richard [?]
Nay NV Reid, Harry [D]
New Hampshire
Yea NH Gregg, Judd [R]
Yea NH Smith, Bob [R]
New Jersey
Nay NJ Lautenberg, Frank [?]
Nay NJ Torricelli, Robert [D]
New Mexico
Nay NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Yea NM Domenici, Pete [R]
New York
Nay NY Moynihan, Daniel [?]
Nay NY Schumer, Charles [D]
North Carolina
Nay NC Edwards, John [D]
Yea NC Helms, Jesse [R]
North Dakota
Nay ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Nay ND Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Yea OH DeWine, Michael [R]
Yea OH Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Not Voting OK Inhofe, James [R]
Yea OK Nickles, Don [R]
Oregon
Yea OR Smith, Gordon [R]
Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Yea PA Santorum, Richard [R]
Yea PA Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Yea RI Chafee, John [R]
Nay RI Reed, John [D]
South Carolina
Yea SC Hollings, Ernest [D]
Yea SC Thurmond, J. [R]
South Dakota
Nay SD Daschle, Thomas [D]
Nay SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Tennessee
Yea TN Frist, William [R]
Yea TN Thompson, Fred [R]
Texas
Yea TX Gramm, Phil [R]
Yea TX Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Yea UT Bennett, Robert [R]
Yea UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Vermont
Yea VT Jeffords, James
Nay VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Virginia
Nay VA Robb, Charles [?]
Yea VA Warner, John [R]
Washington
Yea WA Gorton, T. [?]
Nay WA Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Nay WV Byrd, Robert [D]
Nay WV Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Nay WI Feingold, Russell [D]
Nay WI Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Yea WY Enzi, Michael [R]
Yea WY Thomas, Craig [R]
 
Desh you posted the link:

Senate: 90-8

Democrats: 38-7 = 84%

House: 362-57

Democrats: 155-51 = 75%

Signed: Bill Clinton
 
evince said:
please show how the people who voted against this bill championed it?


The party that championed this bill is the one who voted for it overwhelmingly, the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Are you truly this fucking ignorant? Or this much of a party hack Desh?

It has to be one of the two.

I never stated those who voted AGAINST the bill championed it. I stated those who voted FOR the bill championed it.

The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of BOTH PARTIES VOTED FOR THIS BILL. PERIOD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top