MM: The deaths in our community due to uranium mining, years ago, may be part of why I get “up tight” in posts, kinda’ like Iraq. But, if people had ANY CLUE how much public land could have put into the treasury had not we given the resources away to corporations, NOT “mom and pop” operations, they’d freak!
Teapublicans want to push “nativism” and bring back the Johnson -Reed Act of 1924. It is the stimulus behind the “anti-Obama” stimulus in politics and media.
Smoot-Hawley prevented cheap goods made with cheap labor from being sold in the United States. If we had Smoot-Hawley as law again we would have jobs coming back hear as early as next week. Why would anyone be against tariffs on stuff WE can manufacture? Sure, the price of stuff might go up say 20% (after all we’re hiring an AMERICAN to do the work) but that increase in price will produce a 30-40% increase in WAGES (Americans have to eat). Plus it makes it possible for people to start their own business (i.e. the American Dream) because they don’t have to worry about cheap products affecting their bottom line.
We could take care of the deficit, unemployment, and wages in this country with one fell swoop. Of course I expect you to whine about how the poor corporations that are making massive profits are going to suffer because they have to hire AMERICANS.
I’ve never learned ANYTHING from you pops, other than the fact that you don’t understand economics but always pretending you do (and that you’re a flaming racist). And of all things wikipedia is your only source? I’m guessing Paul Revere DID warn the British that we were coming, huh?
Anyway let me school you on some numbers, okay? Here we go:
“Most economists at the time and since agree that it had a negative effect on the economy. After the 1929 stock market crash…”
That first sentence should have told you everything you needed to know about unemployment and the depression. Smoot-Howley had to do with international trade. The crash was a local thing here in the states. Tell me again how an international trade agreement caused the stock market crash and the depression of 1929. But I’m not done yet. More proof is needed.
“U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP.
This is where wiki starts to get ficticious. First off Smoot-Howley was signed into law on June 17, 1930. I fail to see how a law that was enacted a year later had anything to do with such numbers. Again, this is due to the depression, not the law. Second, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis the GDP in 1929 was $103.6 billion dollars. Even if you were to plug the final number of that year (GDP nosedived to $56.4 billion) and pluged in those bad numbers they would only account for 1/5 of 1% of the total economy (in other words it had a neglible effect on the economy). So how in the world did Smoot-Howley destroy the economy? You right wingers spill a lot of misinformation, thinking it won’t go unchallenged and then comes someone with a few facts to smack you upside the head.
”The problem isn’t trade with China, it’s China’s manipulation of their currency, which is against international treaties.“
We have a trade deficit with 90 different countries, not just China. If that’s the case then we need to accuse all of them of money manipulation. First of all, no one can be certain or prove whether a currency is under or over valued because there is no objective criterion or standard. Even exchange rates that supposedly are freely formed on the market are politically manipulated by interventions of states, state debt acceptance and fixing key interest rates. Exchange rates are also distorted by market forces and by potent financial speculators who speculate on a devaluing or upgrading of the currency. Currency speculation is the main business of the financial fraudsters today. So if you’re looking for currency manipulation look at George Soros and make it illegal to speculate on currencies.
”Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
First ya gotta get the history right. Then I’ll agree with this statement.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
Well, if we’d get rid of the 1872 Mining Act, we’d be getting enough payment for royalties to knock the “whatsit” out of the debt.
Jason Allen over 12 years ago
There’s Republican walking up behind him to take his little hammer away.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
MM: The deaths in our community due to uranium mining, years ago, may be part of why I get “up tight” in posts, kinda’ like Iraq. But, if people had ANY CLUE how much public land could have put into the treasury had not we given the resources away to corporations, NOT “mom and pop” operations, they’d freak!
treered over 12 years ago
anyone see SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION? umm?
treered over 12 years ago
Erys, the republican is rolling another boulder to squeeze out Obama (and us)….
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
Teapublicans want to push “nativism” and bring back the Johnson -Reed Act of 1924. It is the stimulus behind the “anti-Obama” stimulus in politics and media.
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
Smoot-Hawley prevented cheap goods made with cheap labor from being sold in the United States. If we had Smoot-Hawley as law again we would have jobs coming back hear as early as next week. Why would anyone be against tariffs on stuff WE can manufacture? Sure, the price of stuff might go up say 20% (after all we’re hiring an AMERICAN to do the work) but that increase in price will produce a 30-40% increase in WAGES (Americans have to eat). Plus it makes it possible for people to start their own business (i.e. the American Dream) because they don’t have to worry about cheap products affecting their bottom line.
We could take care of the deficit, unemployment, and wages in this country with one fell swoop. Of course I expect you to whine about how the poor corporations that are making massive profits are going to suffer because they have to hire AMERICANS.
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
I’ve never learned ANYTHING from you pops, other than the fact that you don’t understand economics but always pretending you do (and that you’re a flaming racist). And of all things wikipedia is your only source? I’m guessing Paul Revere DID warn the British that we were coming, huh?
Anyway let me school you on some numbers, okay? Here we go:
“Most economists at the time and since agree that it had a negative effect on the economy. After the 1929 stock market crash…”
That first sentence should have told you everything you needed to know about unemployment and the depression. Smoot-Howley had to do with international trade. The crash was a local thing here in the states. Tell me again how an international trade agreement caused the stock market crash and the depression of 1929. But I’m not done yet. More proof is needed.
“U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP.
This is where wiki starts to get ficticious. First off Smoot-Howley was signed into law on June 17, 1930. I fail to see how a law that was enacted a year later had anything to do with such numbers. Again, this is due to the depression, not the law. Second, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis the GDP in 1929 was $103.6 billion dollars. Even if you were to plug the final number of that year (GDP nosedived to $56.4 billion) and pluged in those bad numbers they would only account for 1/5 of 1% of the total economy (in other words it had a neglible effect on the economy). So how in the world did Smoot-Howley destroy the economy? You right wingers spill a lot of misinformation, thinking it won’t go unchallenged and then comes someone with a few facts to smack you upside the head.
”The problem isn’t trade with China, it’s China’s manipulation of their currency, which is against international treaties.“
We have a trade deficit with 90 different countries, not just China. If that’s the case then we need to accuse all of them of money manipulation. First of all, no one can be certain or prove whether a currency is under or over valued because there is no objective criterion or standard. Even exchange rates that supposedly are freely formed on the market are politically manipulated by interventions of states, state debt acceptance and fixing key interest rates. Exchange rates are also distorted by market forces and by potent financial speculators who speculate on a devaluing or upgrading of the currency. Currency speculation is the main business of the financial fraudsters today. So if you’re looking for currency manipulation look at George Soros and make it illegal to speculate on currencies.
”Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
First ya gotta get the history right. Then I’ll agree with this statement.
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
If you don’t understand, shut it. It only make you look that much more ignorant.