US gov't shutdown

I mean, it fits in with the audience of Ur-Fascism. They're simply more susceptible to very blatant, logically incompatible lies.

@Marso is patient zero.

Edit: followed closely by @Federal Farmer apparently.

So you are arguing there wasn’t an economic boom in the 1920s? Where does the term roaring 20s come from then?

The 1920s did see an economic boom, completely on borrowed money, leading directly into the worst economic downturn in recorded history, anywhere, ever. The way out of that downturn was redistribution of wealth, thus creating the only kind of downward trickle that has ever actually worked: The mandated kind.

You’re 100% certain that it was the tax policies of the 1920s that led to the Great Depression? Also, it wasn’t the new deal that got us out, it was WW2.

The latter claim is definitely false and easily shown when you look at the data, with the recovery starting 1933 and pretty much ending in 39, well before the US entered the war.

As for the former, no economic development has ever been a result of just 1 factor. But you claimed the roaring 20s as a success story, and they are in fact a catastrophe. So if realizing that makes you suddenly decide that the economic policies you thought were responsible when you ignored the catastrophe are no longer responsible now that you have noticed it, then that's your bias. Meanwhile, I cannot name a single case of sustained economic growth in history that wasn't correlated with strong redistribution of wealth, nor a case in which unfettered capitalist markets did correlate with ruin. Can you?

Let's take a look. In 1921 those making over $100,00 a year were taxed at a rate of 73%. 30% of that was actually paid. The rate was later cut to 24% and guess what, more revenue came in and the rich paid 65% which resulted in that boom we talked about. The unemployment rate went from 4.2% 1925 to 1.8% in 1928. The bust that occurred (The Great Depression) was not due to tax policy, but, just like 2008, banks shady practices and the Federal Reserve not knowing how to deal with it properly. Then you have the Kennedy tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts that resulted in increased revenues throughout the 1980s despite high deficits. Yes there was a recession 1981-1982 due to bad policies from Carter, but it was the quickest recovery in history.

As for the New Deal ending the depression, yes, I was taught tat in High School too, but then I went to college and found out that wasn't quite true, kind of like the lie that Lincoln freed the slaves.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...orld-war-ii-not-the-start-of-it/#2a6d927457d3

https://www.encyclopedia.com/econom...s-and-maps/world-war-ii-and-ending-depression

So it's pure coincidence that every time we have a prolonged period of laissez-faire economics and tax-slashing, a devastating crash happens?

Coincidence, no. But not causation either. They have the same root cause. Low tax-rate periods correlate decently well with loose monetary policies, for political reasons. If you look at where there was tax-cutting without a loose-then-tight monetary policy (eg. Kennedy's tax cuts), you find no recession. If you look at where taxes were higher but there was a loose-then-tight monetary policy (Clinton-2001), you find recession.

You can tell this place is basically economics illiterate because not only didn't anyone contradict Packard's false claims, but five people actually pos repped it. They love their entitlements and will lie cheat or steal in support of their ideology that remains unsupported by any empirical evidence.

To omit the impact of Smoot Hawley tariffs and ensuing trade war shows ignorance - it was perhaps the chief contributing factor that transformed a budding recovery already begun after the Crash of '29 into a recession. Government intervention to "fix" things occurred after the unemployment rate started improving after the low it hit following the Crash of 29. Etc. According to Tom Sowell (obviously a "conservative" economist) the intervention by the federal reserve and the heavy efforts of (what we now call) Keynsian economics (the "new deal") exacerbated and prolonged the depression. Rather than help, the intervention caused and prolonged the pain of the Great Depression.

And funny sidenote: Fred Hayek once commented that soon before he died, Keynes had acknowledged to Hayek that Keynes' ideas were best applied only under very limited circumstances, but by that point the genie was already out of bottle and his refinements to "Keynesian" economics were ignored by what I'll call power-hungry government spendthrifts who persist in (pretend) belief that heavy state intervention and increased government spending is the optimal response, that government must step in to "fix" a downturn. Keynes had made a political evaluation and his "economics" was modified accordingly. Heh.
Here, skip ahead for a taste of what I mean to 8:30 min. in this video:

edit to add vid I found.

This is the bit you have to prove, everything else in that paragraph is consensus made to sound like a contradiction.

I think that comparison says more about your claim than anything else could.

Of the two sources you then cite, one directly contradicts your claim in the first two sentences ("A common fallacy is that the Great Depression was ended by the explosive spending of World War II. But World War II actually institutionalized the sharp decline in the standard of living caused by the Depression."), and the second just points out that the New Deal didn't suffice (otherwise claiming the opposite of your first source about WW2 spending, so you should probably make up your mind there). I'm not saying the New Deal solved the whole problem. It turned around the Great Depression in the mid-1930s, it did not prevent the second dip of the Great Depression in 1937 but certainly mitigated its effects tremendously, and the war also was a boon to the economy, though not to the population, whose interest we are supposedly supporting when we desire a strong economy. All of those things can be true at the same time, and are.

This is something you and apparently the Federal Reserve doesn't understand, the market has natural ups and downs that lead to "panics", but the market also self corrects after a couple of years. This is what you saw in 1982 with the quickest recovery in history, but every time the government gets involved they make it worse, hence why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did.

I see @Tuttle pretty much already covered this.

Absolutely, it's common knowledge among certain historians and economists (those that don't adhere to a liberal narrative) that WW2 ended the Great Depression. How the other narrative(FDR is the Savior of humanity) got into high school text books is beyond me.

This.

Nice scare quotes there denoting the pain and suffering of a hundred million people.

Look. The market is made by humans for humans, and if it hurts humans rather than improving their lives, it has failed. You don't get to tell hungry people begging for food that their suffering is "a natural downswing" of the market. And you sure as hell don't get to claim that your preferred policies lead to upswings on the basis of data that show them followed by downswings just 'because downswings are natural'.