I’m a bit puzzled. Do I thank you or request the proof of the fallacy? It should be interesting, normally it requires an argument or a statement to generate a fallacy. Of course some people like the sound of words, and are not too concerned with their meaning.
Sophistry:
From the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0
I should have known better, a dictionary is a tool, and like any tool, one must have the skill to use it. If one lacks the wit for logical debate, one can always fall back on the tactics of the elementary school playground. I trust you will find others on the playground with which to hone your skills at name calling. I will let you have the last word on this or any other issue.
You are still making the argument by just saying it. With the evolution comparison you try to make it sound like I'm crazy for suggesting that a war that destroyed billions in wealth and killed millions might not have helped markets. I am making the argument that more than fiscal policy it was monetary policy that drove that recovery- look at the Fed's moves circa 1940 when it became a lot more expansionary (not saying that that is a good thing for the long run as some of that probably helped inflate bubbles too, but that's what happened.) Personally, I would've just liked to see the Federal government stay out of it and let the market recover, but of course Hoover, FDR, and then Truman and their respective administrations as well as Fed leaders couldn't have it that way.
And where do you suppose the gold came from?
Yes, and you are essentially making the type of argument that a creationist or a flat Earther makes. I have to give the same credence to your viewpoint as the viewpoint found in high school textbooks.
First of all, I was alive in the Great Depression. There are some things you don?t get out of a textbook. I won?t bother looking at the Fed?s moves. Nor am I particularly concerned with the Markets. I realize that the Markets never fully recovered until long after World War II. Who gives a damn?
What mattered was having a job. Being able to feed your family. I won?t do your homework for you. Look up unemployment from 1930 until 1950. That?s what the Great Depression was to most folks.
Actually, to many people, things got worse after the end of World War II. My father, for one. Me, for another.
The United States got off quite well compared to a lot of other countries during World War II. I was in France in 1952, and they still hadn?t recovered. World War II was a cataclysmic disaster for the World. What has that to do with whether it ended the Great Depression?
I doubt very much if you realize what the United States was like during the Great Depression. The Soviet Union was considered a success. Communism was looked at far differently than it is today. There was talk of revolution. There was no automatic assumption that Capitalism was a success.
If you look at photographs of ordinary people taken during the Great Depression, they look like pictures of people from a Third World Country. I was in some of those photos.
To me, what makes perfect sense to you, is utter nonsense.
What you don?t seem to understand is that until Pearl Harbor, FDR (No, he was part of the problem, not the solution.) was merely the President of a country struggling against economic malaise, after Pearl Harbor, he was the President of a nation under attack as we can only dream of today. The implementation of policies that would have been unthinkable before the attack, became the expected response of a nation at war. Don?t look at the Fed, nor the stock market, look at the lives of everyday Americans and what changed from 1941 to 1942.
The gold? I rather imagine that it came from the ground. I sincerely hope you are not trying to make the absurd argument that I suspect.
It unfortunately is not as easy as "having a job." That is what economics is about and what we are discussing here- how that job was made. The Fed's expansionary policy has a lot to do with what businesses did- including hiring people. Furthermore, just because jobs are made does not mean anything if they don't last- bubbles cause great hardship as our current recession and even the Great Depression show.
I understand you were alive during it and you experienced it, but with that you also attached more emotions to it than those who weren't alive for it. Sometimes pathos can be very misleading.
As for the gold- where would that value have been had the government not taken it? Of course I am making that point- it is true isn't it?
I understand you were alive during it and you experienced it, but with that you also attached more emotions to it than those who weren't alive for it. Sometimes pathos can be very misleading.
As for the gold- where would that value have been had the government not taken it? Of course I am making that point- it is true isn't it?
What we are discussing is whether WW II ended the Great Depression. Even if you understood economics, you would have to know history. This is especially true of WW II because it was an economic anomaly. Your argument about the negative value of experience is pathetic. Yes, someone who did the research could know the big picture far better than someone who was there, but it wouldn?t be the same. No matter how many books you have read about sex, until you do it, it?s just theory.
There is a limit on the amount of remedial education I do. If you want to know what happened during World War II, get a good book on the subject. Since you are interested in economics, you might get one that deals with it from the economic viewpoint. If you can find one that substantiates your argument, not a blog or a propaganda vidiot feed, but an academic book, by all means let me know, I would at least like to Google it.
As for the gold argument. To answer your question, I would have to know the government involved. That?s why most people are careful with categorical arguments, you didn?t specify the government. That means your statement applied to any government.
Some governments just took the gold, but I believe in the US they largely bought it. If the guy hadn?t sold it to the government, he would have sold it to someone else. Like most of your questions, I have a problem with the relevance. As for your point, I haven?t the vaguest idea what it is.
I not once said that experience is not important or different than reading about it, but just because you were there doesn't mean you are right about whatever you say. And with all due respect, it certainly doesn't call for your arrogance (referring to your "remedial" education comment.) Economics is not an exact science and there are virtually limitless variables involved in markets, which is why there is no right answer and the argument I am making here is very plausible (and it's not even like I am making some absurd claim here- of the major economic schools of thought in the US right now, only one would say the war spending ended the Depression- the Keynesians.)
If it was in fact Fed policy that led to jobs, then no WWII DID NOT end the Depression, but instead said policy did. Just because they happened at the same time, doesn't mean it was the war that did the trick.
It can be applied to any government.
If the government bought it- then where did the money come from? No matter how much you want to circle the issue, at the end of the day that store of value was created in the private sector and not by government.
I think I am going to have to add the "WW II not ending the GD" to Flat Earth Theories and Creationism to items not to be debated. In a debate, you have to respect the other persons viewpoint. As to the universality of your viewpoint, just give me the name of one textbook that supports it. Any standard textbook on history supports my version. The one on my book shelves is "a Concise History of the American Republic", by Morison, Commager and Leuchtenburg. It?s one volume, a large volume, but it would take twenty volumes to do the subject justice. The part on WW II is really inadequate, you need at least a large book for that even if you left the military operations out of it. And no, it?s not the only book I have read on the subject, it?s just the only one I have now. Most of the books I have read are no longer with me. I have only three large book cases, when a new book comes in, an old book has to leave.
I did a brief glance over just to make sure that I hadn?t completely lost it. No, it was still the way I remembered it.
You expect me to respect your viewpoint when you talk of the Fed?s role in employment? Do you realize that ten million men in the prime of their life were removed from the American labor market? That the major workforce in many factories were women who had never worked in a factory before? That old men such as my father who would have been marginally employable before were snatched up as soon as they showed up. The problem in WWII was not getting a job, it was finding workers. It wasn?t just factories, they rushed a dam to completion just to supply Alcoa with electricity to make aluminum. The highway to Alaska project was an enormous undertaking, but they had to defend Alaska.
Do you have any idea at all of what America accomplished during World War II? In addition to that, she fed, clothed, and housed her people better that at any time previous to that.
In order for you to fully understand the absurdity of that Fed statement, all you have to do is know a little history, but apparently, you don?t, so what am I supposed to do?
As for your not demeaning experience, what was this, praise?
No, I?m not an expert on WW II just because I was alive, but I know nonsense when I hear it. There are a lot of people who know far more than I about WW II. You don?t seem to be one of them.
As for the gold nonsense.
The purpose of civilization is to take the harvest from the Harvester and give it to the Elites. That is true of every civilized state in the history of Man. The only three indispensable elements are Harvester, Warriors, and Elites. Everyone else is there to aid the game.
The sector you seem to admire is a recent addition to the game. Agriculture supplied the surplus to feed the warriors. The Warriors conquered the Harvesters, and gave their harvest to the Elites who either returned a part of the harvest or allowed the Harvesters to keep a portion. However, it was for the Elites to decide. In the Tokogawa Shogunate, the merchant was last. After all, he isn?t really needed. The Inca Empire proved that.
It doesn?t really matter to a logical person. The gold in Fort Knox is no longer in the private sector. If it is removed and sold, then it becomes part of the private sector. If it isn?t removed, it remains in the public sector. However if you aren?t dealing with a logical person, then you have a problem.
You say I don't respect your viewpoint and I am sorry if you feel that way, but let me say that I do. I completely do, I just don't agree with it. And turning around what you just said, you have to respect my viewpoint as well. And if you think there are no people who agree with me on this matter then just pick up any book from a Chicago or Austrian school man- perhaps Friedman or Hayek.
As for the gold- we are getting into the philosophy of what we believe the state should be. That's a whole other discussion. I for one believe in people keeping the fruits of their labor- you believe the elites should have a free cut even if they had no investment in the harvest. It is a difference of opinion. Just because history has been one way, doesn't mean its been right- with that thinking there would never be societal, political, or any change.
As for the gold- we are getting into the philosophy of what we believe the state should be. That's a whole other discussion. I for one believe in people keeping the fruits of their labor- you believe the elites should have a free cut even if they had no investment in the harvest. It is a difference of opinion. Just because history has been one way, doesn't mean its been right- with that thinking there would never be societal, political, or any change.
Thanks, but that would be nicer if I thought that you understood my viewpoint.
As I said, the name of the book. From what I?ve seem so far, I suspect that I?m closer to Friedman?s view point than you are. Not familiar with Hayek, the only member of the Austrian School I?ve read is Henry Hazlitt. Ironically, the Broken Window Fallacy is Hazlitt?s creation. I buy some of his thinking, but not all of it. The same for Friedman.
I don?t like to postulate the opinions of others, but I have a few doubts as for your understanding the economics of either man.
Ironically, the most insidious tool of the big spenders, income tax withholding, was developed in part by Milton Friedman during WW II. Can you imagine how popular incomes taxes would be if everybody had to pay them as a lump sum at the end of the year.
http://mises.org/daily/1797
Friedman lived through the GD and WW II. It would be interesting if he said that WW II didn?t end the GD, but so far, I haven?t found any evidence of it. Perhaps you can do better. No, don?t tell me to read his books, tell me where he said that. I?m sorry, but I have a few doubts as to your extrapolations of his philosophy.
To quote Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke", "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
First off, logic isn?t philosophy, and it really isn?t concerned with beliefs.
Second of all, I don?t believe that the Elites should have a free cut, I believe that?s the way it is. I would very much like to change the way it is. I?m an Anarchist, and my investigation into the nature of the state led me to the belief that the problem goes back to the beginning of civilization. Actually, the final epiphany came from reading a text book on processional archaeology. That left me with the realization that to destroy the state, you had to destroy civilization, which I believe is easier than it seems, but that?s another story.
So before you differ with my opinion, it might help if you got it right. I grant you, that?s not an easy task. You won?t find my viewpoint anywhere else than on my posts, so I?m sure they are a little hard to grasp. When that happens people have a tendency to reshape the ungraspable into the graspable.
As for history being a guide to right, as Aristotle said, "Precedent does not establish right." Actually he didn?t say that, he didn?t speak English, but I forgot who did the translation.
So please, stop assigning beliefs to me that are not my own.
Made bigger by the fact that Paul Newman didn't say it.
Strother Martin (the captain said it)
Annoying as hell when people pounce on minutiae with no greater purpose than calumny huh?
I'll let you have the last word.
Last edited:
Ignoramus, you say I don't understand your position, but I am fairly certain I do. Are you or are you not saying WWII got us out of Depression?
You tell me not to assign you beliefs, yet you continue to do that to me and whenever I address one of your points, you just bring in irrelevant points as a means of trying to show that I am misguided. For example, I said Friedman didn't believe government spending such as WWII would get us out of a depression. You respond by saying he invented the withholding tax, which is used by spenders. Well, that wasn't the point we were debating- it was whether or not he (and many like-thinkers) believe in such "stimulus." The Chicago school has not and does not and Friedman's writings clearly show he doesn't. I am not sure if he directly commented on WWII, but if he didn't that still isn't a valid argument (as you used it in your last post) since he also hasn't said WWII did get us out of depression. If there is no direct analysis from the source, it is all inference and his writings and school strongly lean against such an idea.
You tell me not to assign you beliefs, yet you continue to do that to me and whenever I address one of your points, you just bring in irrelevant points as a means of trying to show that I am misguided. For example, I said Friedman didn't believe government spending such as WWII would get us out of a depression. You respond by saying he invented the withholding tax, which is used by spenders. Well, that wasn't the point we were debating- it was whether or not he (and many like-thinkers) believe in such "stimulus." The Chicago school has not and does not and Friedman's writings clearly show he doesn't. I am not sure if he directly commented on WWII, but if he didn't that still isn't a valid argument (as you used it in your last post) since he also hasn't said WWII did get us out of depression. If there is no direct analysis from the source, it is all inference and his writings and school strongly lean against such an idea.
Close enough, but that was about the only one. What I said was that World War II ended the Great Depression.
For example, you screwed up here. Old folks like to ramble. I was just throwing out what to me was an interesting fact. There was no attempt to show that you were misguided, you do a pretty good job of that on your own. Mea culpa, I should keep it simple with folks that are easily confused.
That wasn?t a response, just a freebie. No, my specific point was that World War II ended the Great Depression. I doubt if anyone at the time considered it a stimulus program. Ideologues tend to have one track minds. I don?t believe that Friedman said that government spending such as World War II wouldn?t get us out of a depression. Do you have a source? He may have said that government stimulus spending wouldn?t get us out of a depression. Actually, I doubt if he even said that. He would probably argue that it wouldn?t work over a long period. He would probably concede a short term benefit, but postulate a long term negative.
That?s your extrapolation from what? His writings? I?m skeptical. Still, even if you have read Friedman, you have clearly demonstrated that what is written and what you read are two different things.
Friedman was against government stimulus programs, given. I doubt very much if he considered World War II to be a stimulus program. One thing he did make clear was that he supported our entry into World War II.
that or you could stay on point without and quit filling up the bulk of your posts with cheap shots....
the choice and last words... are yours
Ignoramus, we are just going in circles now, but let me just say one thing- Friedman may have supported our entry into WWII, but that does not mean he thought it was economically a good move. Most people at that time (and even today) would have supported the entry including myself considering we were attacked by Japan- much like how most Americans supported going after Bin Laden.
If it weren?t for the forum demanding more, I would just type "I agree" and leave it at that.
I never said that it was economically a good move. WWII was a global cataclysm. Immense forces were put in play, and the Great Depression just got washed out by them. In 1945 the World was a far different place than it was in 1939.
Similar threads
