I love how you've started your own form of Godwin's Law with GWB, but sadly, he was not nearly as popular as FDR


GWB




FDR

4/5/2011 12:37:15 AM

Good point. I stand corrected. FDR never attained GWB's 94%.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 12:44 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/5/2011 12:42:35 AM

Quote :

"Unlike you I generally have some sort of evidence when I post things like that, so I'll give you the amount of debt we've sold since 1940, since that alone would destroy your argument and give some context to mine."

FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK, THE US HAD A $54,853,000,000 TRADE SURPLUS from 1948-1960.

FEEL FREE TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF DEBT WE SOLD TO THE WORLD GOVERNMENTS, WORLD CITIZENS, OUR OWN CITIZENS, AND OUR CENTRAL BANK. AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE WITH THAT, ADMIT YOU'RE DEAD FUCKING WRONG. AND THEN KILL YOURSELF. KINDLY.

4/5/2011 7:16:00 AM

We maintained a slight trade surplus, but nothing much more significant than we had in years before the war, you can look into that as well.

How this relates to debt is that in 1940 we began selling our debt, and foreign countries began investing in us. Thus we were selling credit, not buying it.

4/5/2011 7:58:15 AM

Quote :

"We maintained a slight trade surplus, but nothing much more significant than we had in years before the war, you can look into that as well."

I'm getting fucking tired of you posting a link then lieing about the data that is in it. You're dead fucking wrong. LOOK AT YOUR OWN FUCKING DATA. LOOK AT THE STEP FUNCTION IN THE TRADE SURPLUS AFTER THE WAR.

AND STOP POSTING FAGGOTY PHOTOS YOU ASS CLOWN

4/5/2011 10:06:08 AM

I would reply, but it's pretty much just you ignoring what I post and continuing to rage as hard as you possibly can, which is funny enough to me, so go ahead, continue, it's funny to me to see how hard you can press your caps lock and shift buttons, while cursing and crying like a little girl.

4/5/2011 10:44:33 AM

well, when you post data and then ignore it, you can't really blame him for calling you out on it

4/5/2011 4:14:28 PM

I'll explain a bit more. I posted data that showed the balance of trade for the US and many other countries for a long timeline. Now Chance, in an eager effort to get all butthurt, jumps in and says "THE US HAD A BALANCE OF TRADES SURPLUS! UR WRONG!!! UR WRONG!! UR WRONG!!". Now while the data does show this, no one ever claimed that the US did not run a balance of trades surplus, moreover I would have not bothered to post all the additional data of many other countries to go with it if not to compare them. What you claimed and what I disputed is that the US greatly increased output relative to other countries during the years after the war. My data shows that such a claim is not true. I go on to point out how the US merely returned roughly to a prewar rate of growth after stabilizing.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2011 4:33:44 PM

and might it be that the US was able to do so because other countries had a reduced capacity?

4/5/2011 4:50:12 PM

This essentially echos the point I made a few months ago when Immelt was originally appointed as a Jobs czar.

Immelt, the Jobs Czar from Hell

Quote :

"The New York Times reported last month that General Electric earned $14.2 billion in international profits, including, $5.1 billion in the United States. Yet GE did not pay a dime in federal income taxes last year. Oddly, President Obama chose GE Chairman and chief executive Jeffrey Immelt to head his President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. According to the Associated Press, Immelt's compensation package doubled to $15.2 million last year, while this year, GE is seeking major concessions from the unions that represent its shrinking American workforce. That makes Immelt the wrong guy for the job of jobs czar. "

Continued at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/05/immelt_the_jobs_czar_from_hell_109452.html

4/5/2011 4:55:53 PM

Quote :

"and might it be that the US was able to do so because other countries had a reduced capacity?"

But they didn't. You can see that here:
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx

Compare the US to France and you will see similar growth when averaged over a date range.

4/5/2011 5:45:25 PM

Quote :

"What you claimed and what I disputed is that the US greatly increased output relative to other countries during the years after the war. My data shows that such a claim is not true"

DEAD

FUCKING

WRONG

4/5/2011 6:02:17 PM

I see a webpage where I have to do your work for you

4/5/2011 6:19:36 PM

I just know I went to the US numbers and it was literally a step function for the trade balance.

I'd like to see the resident douche do the numbers on all the other countries to prove me wrong.

Regardless, those numbers don't say a god damn thing about selling of debt, and he has yet to make why that even fucking matters.

4/5/2011 6:21:39 PM

because said douchebag is trying to play it off like I said we borrowed money to sell shit to the rest of the world. because douchebag actually thinks it would make sense to say such a thing

and the hilarious thing is the numbers he gave on the previous page absolutely support my claim. We QUADRUPLED our exports from 1938 to 1948. I know inflation didn't quadruple between that time. It's also funny how his data to prove his point conveniently omits the 2 years following WWII. I'd imagine those years would still prove my point: that the ravaged economies of other nations are to explain for the US exiting the Depression

now, let's look at Germany... Hmmm, reduced exports. Sound like a crippled economy? naaaah
france tripled its imports...

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2011 6:36:33 PM

Quote :

"I see a webpage where I have to do your work for you"

I already did it, I would have posted the graph of the query I made, but it's dynamically generated, so there is a small bit of work you have to do which consists of picking the two countries, US and France, then the date range you want, then you get the numbers, you can click the little chart button and even see a chart! I post the graphs when they are available, but this site forces you to query them yourself, it's fairly easy.

Quote :

"I just know I went to the US numbers and it was literally a step function for the trade balance."

Which is irrelevant, no one said the US didn't grow, someone implied that it grew much faster than than those in Europe, which the data shows is wrong.

Quote :

"I'd like to see the resident douche do the numbers on all the other countries to prove me wrong."

I did. In fact I even posted a link to a site that allows you to query the numbers from european countries and create a graph to compare the two, it's not very hard, unfortunately they don't have as large of a record of data for most countries, but they do have enough for france, which is enough to do the comparison in graph form, but I did look at all of them. Unfortunately I'm betting you're using the tiny bit of extra effort to analyze what we were actually talking about as a cop out.

Quote :

"Regardless, those numbers don't say a god damn thing about selling of debt, and he has yet to make why that even fucking matters."

It was suggested that we bought debt and I thought it was interesting to point out that post WW2 was the era of the US selling debt and foreign countries investing in us.

Quote :

"I said we borrowed money to sell shit to the rest of the world."

Not at all, what you said was stupid enough, I had no need to twist your words.

Quote :

"that the ravaged economies of other nations are to explain for the US exiting the Depression"

I can see now that you don't really have any interest in analyzing the data for yourself, so instead I will simply point to a few articles from economists on both sides of the fence disputing the exact claim you are making.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=656
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2123613
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/meltdown-macroeconomics/

The common view on the right is what LoneSnark stated, which claims that the entire war had little to do with economic recovery. The common view on the left is that the war caused increased government spending which helped recovery. Pretty much no one makes your claim, that the US got out of the depression by selling goods to war-torn europe on credit for three main reasons:
1. That kind of selling on credit never happened
2. The depression was a worldwide phenomenon that ended in europe around the same time it did in the US
3. It's stupid as shit

4/5/2011 8:57:17 PM

This is the first time I've even remotely followed one of you guys' little squabbles over data and I have come to this conclusion:

1. I still don't know what's going on and I don't really care.
2. Kris is horrible at presenting data.

4/5/2011 9:55:16 PM

That may be, but I'll remind you that I may be the only person on this board that actually presents data.

4/5/2011 10:02:29 PM

Yeah, and it's terrible.

4/5/2011 10:05:44 PM

Quote :

"Which is irrelevant, no one said the US didn't grow, someone implied that it grew much faster than than those in Europe, which the data shows is wrong. "

no one said such a thing. straw man.

Quote :

"I did. In fact I even posted a link to a site that allows you to query"

so in other words, you posted a site, then said "do the work yourself." Like I said.

Quote :

"It was suggested that we bought debt and I thought it was interesting to point out that post WW2 was the era of the US selling debt and foreign countries investing in us."

Even then, that doesn't work. You claimed 1960s, to which I rightfully pointed out that the 1960s are well after WWII.

Quote :

"Not at all, what you said was stupid enough, I had no need to twist your words."

Then why point out when WE SOLD DEBT? Stupid fuck. I know exactly what you meant. Don't try to weasel out of it.

Quote :

"That kind of selling on credit never happened"

*cough*lend-lease*cough*

Quote :

"Pretty much no one makes your claim"

Really? No one makes the claim that it's WWII which helped us get out of the depression? Really?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=WWII+helped+US+out+of+the+depression

moreover, you are WAY caught up in the credit aspect. That's never been a key claim. I most certainly mentioned it, but it was more of a tongue in cheek think than anything else. You are the one trying to suggest that Europe didn't have a war-ravaged economy, where thousands upon thousands of factories weren't destroyed and that the US didn't have thousands upon thousands of undamaged factories.

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 10:39 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2011 10:34:03 PM

Quote :

"no one said such a thing"

I say that the destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy via WWII enabled us to claw our way out of the depression by allowing us to sell our widgets to everyone else

That's pretty much what you said.

Quote :

"so in other words, you posted a site, then said "do the work yourself.""

I did all the footwork I could, unfortunately I wasn't able to spoonfeed you, but it's some data as opposed to the nothing you've posted.

Quote :

" You claimed 1960s, to which I rightfully pointed out that the 1960s are well after WWII."

It happened in the 1940's as well as my graph showed.

Quote :

"lend-lease"

That was only war materials.

Quote :

"Really? No one makes the claim that it's WWII which helped us get out of the depression? Really?"

That's not the claim you made. In fact I pointed out that that's one part of the claim the left makes, your's was different:
say that the destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy via WWII enabled us to claw our way out of the depression by allowing us to sell our widgets to everyone else

Quote :

"That's never been a key claim"

Sure it is, your claim is that it was america's relative lead that got it out of the depression, because I'm sure you don't want to agree with me that it was the government spending that helped to stimulate the economy out of the liquidity trap. But this claim not only ignore the fact that the relative lead didn't really effect anything, but more importantly it ignores that the depression was worldwide and we all came out of it at about the same time.

Quote :

"You are the one trying to suggest that Europe didn't have a war-ravaged economy, where thousands upon thousands of factories weren't destroyed and that the US didn't have thousands upon thousands of undamaged factories."

Unfortunately that didn't have a huge effect. You need two things for trade, you're only focusing on one of them, you need to be able to make a product, but just as importantly, you need someone who wants it, this is why that had little impact, The worldwide economy is not zero sum, those destroyed factories indirectly effected us as well as the obvious direct effect it had on them.

4/5/2011 11:28:00 PM

"I say that the destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy via WWII enabled us to claw our way out of the depression by allowing us to sell our widgets to everyone else" /= "someone implied that it grew much faster than than those in Europe".
That's why it's called a straw man...

Quote :

"I did all the footwork I could, unfortunately I wasn't able to spoonfeed you, but it's some data as opposed to the nothing you've posted."

No, it's zero data. It's a link to a ton of shit. That's all. Ctl-PrtScrn must be hard for you to use.

Quote :

"It happened in the 1940's as well as my graph showed."

HAHAHAHAHA. Backtracking now? Wasn't it you who said, and I'll quote: "since the 1960's we sold debt"? Typical Kris.

Quote :

"That was only war materials."

And yet it was most certainly "us selling a bunch of shit on credit," was it not? Thank you, and good day, sir.

Quote :

"That's not the claim you made."

So, "WWII helped us get out of the depression" is not equal to "the destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy via WWII helped us get out of the depression." Huh. Never would have thought. It's not like one is a subset of the other or anything.

Quote :

"Sure it is"

Not with regard to credit it isn't.

Quote :

"but more importantly it ignores that the depression was worldwide and we all came out of it at about the same time."

Funny that you mention this, because even on THIS you are wrong. Many sources point to the fact that the US came out of the depression well after other nations. Again, you are talking out of your ass!
Take this, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#World_War_II_and_recovery

Quote :

"The massive rearmament policies leading up to World War II helped stimulate the economies of Europe in 1937–39. By 1937, unemployment in Britain had fallen to 1.5 million. The mobilization of manpower following the outbreak of war in 1939 finally ended unemployment.[50] America's entry into the war in 1941 finally eliminated the last effects from the Great Depression and brought the unemployment rate down below 10%."

Hmm, that looks like Europe is out of it by 1938, while the US doesn't come out fully until 1941. That doesn't sound like "at the same time."
Let's see... Japan is out by 1933. The Netherlands is out in 1937. Canada gets out in 1937, fully out by 1939. France is back to 1929 levels by 1939. England is out in 1937. Yeah, we all got out "at the same time," if by "at the same time," you mean "the US four years after everyone else."

Quote :

"but just as importantly, you need someone who wants it,"

Yes, and truly no one in Europe needed to replace anything. It's not like anything was destroyed over there. No one needed parts for factories or to rebuild houses or anything.

4/5/2011 11:51:20 PM

Quote :

""I say that the destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy via WWII enabled us to claw our way out of the depression by allowing us to sell our widgets to everyone else" /= "someone implied that it grew much faster than than those in Europe"."

They are exactly the same, your original statement contained that implication.

Quote :

"No, it's zero data. It's a link to a ton of shit."

It's a link to a tool where you can find the information I referenced, it also allows you to get additional data on your own (as if you would).

Quote :

"Ctl-PrtScrn must be hard for you to use."

And basic html forms must be hard for you to use. Do you want me to go ahead and write your responses for you as well? How about you make a decent reply to any of the evidence I've already posted and maybe I'll start wiping the dribble from your mouth a bit more throughly, or hell, even post your own evidence outside lmgtfy and wikipedia, I'd be impressed, granted you've throughly lowered my standards over the years.

Quote :

"Wasn't it you who said, and I'll quote: "since the 1960's we sold debt"?"

Yes, I said that, and it is true, since the 1960's we've sold our debt, we've also sold it since the 1940's as well, thus the graph.

Quote :

"And yet it was most certainly "us selling a bunch of shit on credit,""

Not really, additionally you implied both that the war was over and that we were selling them non-wartime materials.

Quote :

"So, "WWII helped us get out of the depression" is not equal to "the destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy via WWII helped us get out of the depression.""

No, they are not equal especially when you consider that anyone who claims that "WWII helped us get out of the depression" will claim that it was the government spending that helped stimulate the economy, not the destruction of the world's economy, as you claimed, which is incredibly stupid.

Quote :

"Many sources point to the fact that the US came out of the depression well after other nations."

So then how did us selling them our stuff on their credit as you have claimed, cause them to get out before us? I thought they had all their factories destroyed?

Quote :

"Hmm, that looks like Europe is out of it by 1938, while the US doesn't come out fully until 1941. That doesn't sound like "at the same time.""

You'll note I said "about the same time" which is exactly correct. There wasn't a single time when anyone was out of the depression. The effects began to wear off worldwide in the 1937-1940 range there was no "finish line". Wikipedia is not being nearly as specific as you are trying to make it.

Quote :

"Yes, and truly no one in Europe needed to replace anything. It's not like anything was destroyed over there. No one needed parts for factories or to rebuild houses or anything."

I think it was obvious that they have to be able to pay for it.

Your argument is becoming less and less coherent. You started with "the us got out of the depression by selling shit to war-torn europe, who's economy was weakened by the war which somehow made ours better". This one is fairly simple as it combines a made up event with the common misconception of the economy as zero-sum. You then go in to add that "europe had factories that were destroyed and for some reason couldn't rebuilt them themselves and need us to do it", and continue with "war torn europe got out of the depression first". Ok, so no we're at "the US clawed on top of the backs of europe in order to get out of the depression after them. Is that basically where we are?

4/6/2011 12:53:22 AM

Quote :

"They are exactly the same, your original statement contained that implication."

No, they aren't. And no, it didn't. Again, that's why it's called a straw man

Quote :

"Yes, I said that, and it is true, since the 1960's we've sold our debt, we've also sold it since the 1940's as well, thus the graph."

and you don't get it. it's hilarious how much you will contradict what you actually fucking said.

Quote :

"Not really, additionally you implied both that the war was over and that we were selling them non-wartime materials."

Look at you... Putting more words in my mouth. You know what that is called? I'll give you a hint: it's two words.

Quote :

"No, they are not equal especially when you consider that anyone who claims that "WWII helped us get out of the depression" will claim that it was the government spending that helped stimulate the economy"

Only, not really. Plenty of people claim otherwise.

Quote :

"So then how did us selling them our stuff on their credit as you have claimed, cause them to get out before us? I thought they had all their factories destroyed?"

Let me paint a picture for you. They get out of the depression, because they don't have horrible and misguided programs fucking them long and hard. Then they get their shit destroyed. Then we can sell shit to them. Wow, that was hard!

Quote :

"You'll note I said "about the same time" which is exactly correct."

I knew you'd pull that cop-out. In terms of a fucking 10-15 year depression, "within four years" is NOT "about the same time." Fuckstick.

Quote :

"You started with "the us got out of the depression by selling shit to war-torn europe, who's economy was weakened by the war which somehow made ours better". This one is fairly simple as it combines a made up event with the common misconception of the economy as zero-sum. You then go in to add that "europe had factories that were destroyed and for some reason couldn't rebuilt them themselves and need us to do it", and continue with "war torn europe got out of the depression first". Ok, so no we're at "the US clawed on top of the backs of europe in order to get out of the depression after them. Is that basically where we are?"

I don't think I've ever seen such a beautiful man of straw. You are REALLY good at this! but really... "War torn europe" in 1937? really? really... really?

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ]

4/6/2011 1:01:49 AM

Quote :

"No, they aren't. And no, it didn't. Again, that's why it's called a straw man"

claw our way out of the depression by allowing us to sell our widgets to everyone else

There is no way that statement does not imply relative growth.

Quote :

"You know what that is called? I'll give you a hint: it's two words."

It seems like those words are "back pedaling", because you seem to be running away from your own statements.

Quote :

"Only, not really. Plenty of people claim otherwise."

Sure they will, but no one will state that the US got out of the depression off the backs of destroyed european economies like you did. Seriously, find one reputable person who makes your claim. I've never read one.

Quote :

"They get out of the depression, because they don't have horrible and misguided programs fucking them long and hard."

Europe took as much, if not more, of a Keynesian approach as the US.

Quote :

" In terms of a fucking 10-15 year depression, "within four years" is NOT "about the same time.""

Getting out of the depression is not as clear cut as you are making it. Hell why don't you give me the day that they got out of it? Maybe you are using a level of precision that was obviously not there in that wikipedia article.

4/6/2011 8:48:54 AM

Quote :

"There is no way that statement does not imply relative growth."

the word "imply" is why it's a straw man. I mention only one country. and that's the US.

Quote :

"Getting out of the depression is not as clear cut as you are making it."

Maybe, maybe not. But, again, 4 years in a 15 year span certainly is not "the same time". You lose, good day, sir!

4/6/2011 5:51:24 PM

Quote :

"destruction of 1/4th of the world's economy"

Quote :

"everyone else"

Those certainly weren't about the US. You're backpedalling.

Quote :

"4 years in a 15 year span certainly is not "the same time""

You never proved it was four years, you cited a wikipedia article which talks about "when the last effects wore off the US" and when unemployment went down in some other places, but it's not showing what you are trying to make it into.

4/6/2011 6:46:00 PM

Quote :

"Those certainly weren't about the US. You're backpedalling. "

i spoke of only one economy that improved, numnuts. YOU are backpedaling. Oh look, Kris arguing semantics when he's beaten. SHOCKER.

Quote :

"You never proved it was four years, you cited a wikipedia article which talks about "when the last effects wore off the US" and when unemployment went down in some other places, but it's not showing what you are trying to make it into."

grasping at straws now.

4/6/2011 6:59:32 PM

Quote :

" someone implied that it grew much faster than than those in Europe, which the data shows is wrong."

You didn't look at the data Kris. You know how I know? BECAUSE I DID. I've got several charts I wasted my time to produce in excel. You are wrong. Now, the logical thing to do would be for me to post them. However, fuck you. I'll send it to burro so we can laugh at your bitch ass. If you're actually interested in taking the data at the link you posted and proving that after the war the entire world had a trade surplus (HOW THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE) then please do that.

Again, i'll even be nice and leave open the idea that you have some sort of argument where you work debt in with the link for world trade you posted, but until you actually articulate that argument...WITH THE DATA YOU POSTED...I'm just going to continue writing you off as the ass clown that you are and keep blocking your stupid photos.

4/6/2011 8:41:56 PM

^^are you going to actually post an argument or are you simply going to claim that I am "grasping at straws" when you aren't even capable of writing a response?

Quote :

"You didn't look at the data Kris."

Sure, I just dug through, found the data, made an argument with it, and then posted it without even looking at it. Why would I have bothered to find the evidence if not to review it? If I wanted to post an argument with no data to support it, I would do like the rest of you do and just pull something out of my ass, it's much easier. I know the data I posted supports my argument, that's why I posted it, you have attempted to twist my argument and my data into something else.

Quote :

"I've got several charts"

OH SHIT! Let me guess, you're not going to post them. How awesomely mature of you! I think I'm done arguing with you considering your inability to ever have any sort of reasoned intelligent debate without resorting to namecalling and childish tactics. If I do debate with you ever again, it will be in a complete effort to get you all butthurt mad again.

4/7/2011 12:30:17 AM

Quote :

"Sure, I just dug through, found the data, made an argument with it"

I apologize, you're actually dumber than I thought. If you looked at the data, there is absolutely no way no how you can conclude that the rest of the world had the same relative increase in trade surplus that the US had. Not a snowballs chance in hell. The only countries that show any sort of a trend change pre/post war (other than the US) are.....Germany starting to ramp in the mid 50s and in 59 and 60, France.

Quote :

"How awesomely mature of you!"

Kris, you set the bar so low I could be shitting in diapers and drinking from sippy cups and I've met the standard.

Quote :

"I think I'm done arguing with you considering your inability to ever have any sort of reasoned intelligent debate without resorting to namecalling and childish tactics. If I do debate with you ever again, it will be in a complete effort to get you all butthurt mad again."

Awww Kris, don't cry. All you had to do was understand the data you looked at and we wouldn't be having a problem.

4/7/2011 6:55:13 AM