129,000 jobs lost in January

[Michael Hardner]

mmax,

QUOTE (Michael Hardner @ Feb 7 2009, 02:23 PM) *

I think it's time to start finding new purposes for ourselves, and we shouldn't assume that failing businesses should be revived.

When an operation purchases a viable and profitable operation in order to get , contracts, technology, market share or eliminate a competitor, there is a possibility and one that is very great, that the profitable operation will be terminated.

It sounds like you're trying to say that the market doesn't work. Of course, a profitable and viable operation can be shut down, or bought by an inefficient company. But in general, this effect isn't sustainable. In general, the best survive.

When you speak of failing businesses.... their is a domino effect when smaller Canadian Operations are aquired by larger operations and closed. If a supplier in a local region loses his customers then the supplier closes operations or downsizes.

Many of the companies that closed their operations in 2006/07 were not failing operations. But the people affected by the decision to close those operations are unemployed nonetheless.

Ok. Presumably, they weren't closed because someone wanted to be charitable to other suppliers elsewhere. The business went away from them.

Many of those new purposes, are well trained people with many skillsets and now with major downsizing occurring across many employment sectors, it is no surprise I see medically trained people working in a warehouse.

You may see that, but is it a significant problem ? Are we generally oversupplied with medical workers ?

You can ignore the figures this month of 129,000 job losses. Don't forget that profitable companies that want to remain here, and haven't been scooped up in predatory practices, still have to downsize to meet the demand in order to stay profitable.

Mr. Hardner, to put it mildly the shit is hitting the fan.

And my point is that we shouldn't ignore the job losses, but that we should be trying to prop up failing businesses either.

So...

A lot of work needs to be done, and yet there's a lot of unemployment. In order to solve both problems, we need imagination and intelligence. Manufacturing jobs may or may not stay around, but they've been under threat for at least 20 years now, so the government might not see that as a good investment.

[madmax]

So a city that wasn't performing that well during what we are told were the good times, looks really grim.

And CHCH is on the rocks.

has stated the amount of local programming produced by CHCH News cannot be sustained.

Staff at CHCH News, which has been rocked by layoffs and program cuts, were called to a meeting at 4:30 p.m. to hear the news from general manager Patrick O'Hara.

Canwest said it is exploring strategic options for five of its "conventional stations" including CHCH News.

[Michael Hardner]

mmax,

Now I get it. Michael, I am a product of that same era in the 1990s. Perhaps that is why I get really pissed when governments talk "technology".

So, I moved on from Asia Mania of the 90s, but I still felt young then smile.gif . I have changed "Careers" many times. Not just "JOBS". I know what happened industrially in the 90s with NAFTA as well. The low end jobs left, lower paying and higher labour intensive where transplanted. But NOBODY, you are correct, NOBODY said BOO about those high paying jobs lost from the tech era lost in the 90s.

I now understand where you are coming from.

I can only say that, all job losses are and have been ignored by government. I choose not to keep my mouth shut, any longer, even though I am making my living off all of many of these bankruptcies and closures, what is happening is not good.

Not all. They have been shoveling money into the auto industry's gaping maw for decades.

Those in BC forestry, say, hey, where were you when we hurting. Each sector barely is able to make a pitch and get heard. For those in industry, many people don't lift a finger until they are out the door. Because many people cannot understand how their profitable operations could be scheduled for closure. Other people do not recognise the fiscal peril their operations are in, or the conditions that have put the operation in that peril.

Where we we ? The government was lobbying the US and was in the news daily, that's where. All I hear about today is auto sector jobs.

There is a reason why there was no response to the loss of high paying tech jobs.

"Why support a failing under performing sector... move on" smile.gif

Been there done that.

If that's the case, then why are we talking about giving money to GM now ?

The problem is that it's an intellectual problem that is only debated emotionally, in the public sphere. If we really care about the people, then we need to stop telling their sad stories for a few minutes until we figure out the best way forward. Put first things first.

[eyeball]

The problem is that it's an intellectual problem that is only debated emotionally, in the public sphere. If we really care about the people, then we need to stop telling their sad stories for a few minutes until we figure out the best way forward. Put first things first.

I think your comment about people finding a new purpose applies to our economy serving a new need. I suspect most people believe all this bailout business and economic stimulus is supposed to get our economy back on track - that we're trying to get back to some ideal point when everything seemed to work. This is just nuts as far as I'm concerned because the way forward is not backwards.

Recall Einstein's definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

When I predicted a new population of permanantly unemployed people I meant a really big number of people as in the double digits perhaps as high as 50% one day. What I'm most worried about is that our society will not give up its capitalistic mores easily and will insist that everyone must carry their own weight to meet even their most basic needs. I suppose we could employ millions for decades digging up the oilsands by pick and shovel but the point I'm making is, what is the economy going to do if people start seriously begin giving up and downshifting and eschewing consumerism and if technological change and relocation of industries to cheaper labour pools continues to eliminate employment opportunities?

I guess people can always shine each others shoes for a living. A friend of mine suggested that every house that is foreclosed should be bulldozed so the demand for new houses and workers to bulldoze and build them goes up. How different is this to shining one another's shoes?

[madmax]

It sounds like you're trying to say that the market doesn't work. Of course, a profitable and viable operation can be shut down, or bought by an inefficient company. But in general, this effect isn't sustainable. In general, the best survive.

You are correct. It isn't sustainable, however, the companies will survive. We are addressing those who lose their employment based upon boardroom decisions, where Canadian operations managers, plant managers, bean counters have no say, and only follow directives. The market works insofar as those working in retail find themselves unemployed when consumption declines, or competition and supply of retail goods exceeds demand. Lower prices perhaps, such as 70% off before christmas, then followed by closures of retail outlets.

The market is affected by variables. One of those variables that exists is the closure of profitable operations. This has an effect on not only the market but the Labour market and EI figures. It's one problem among many. It is one problem that hurts our economy.

Ok. Presumably, they weren't closed because someone wanted to be charitable to other suppliers elsewhere. The business went away from them.

I sat in a boardroom meeting one fine spring day. The New American owners had a great plan. "We are going to F*$K"... and the went on to list all the local CDN suppliers.

The plan was simple. The intent was to move the production to another location and use the cash cow (flow) of the Cdn operation to pay suppliers in the US. Do not pay CDN suppliers, move the CDN operation into bankruptcy. Part of doing this is to have the CDN operation do work for the foreign operation with the payment made to the US. It doesn't take very long to bankrupt a company. Buyout the leases on the important newer high tech equipment, and put leases on ones that were paid for so that you don't have to compete or pay for the equipment in bankruptcy auction. Create your own leasing company to do this. At the bankruptcy prevent the competition from aquiring the equipment or the information that the contracts of the operation where involved in price fixing to purposefully direct new contracts outside of Canada, make certain that the leasing company, which you own, will not lease to the "new operation" should a buyer appear.

What we here might consider "fraud", is simply business. Or lets say, the "Market" in action.

it a significant problem ? Are we generally oversupplied with medical workers ?

Not yet, from my current data. I don't believe it is significant, but I am not surprised to find newly trained health care personel not finding employment in their fields in Ontario.

And my point is that we shouldn't ignore the job losses, but that we should be trying to prop up failing businesses either.

I don't believe in propping up a failing business. I believe in investigating the conditions that are behind those "failures".

A lot of work needs to be done, and yet there's a lot of unemployment. In order to solve both problems, we need imagination and intelligence. Manufacturing jobs may or may not stay around, but they've been under threat for at least 20 years now, so the government might not see that as a good investment.

The government is so far behind what needs to be done, that I doubt anything will happen, beyond them throwing money around at every turn, hoping and praying it was enough for them to get elected next time around.

My problem is watching the list of companies aquired in the last 3 years in my area , with long histories, and weathering every boom and bust with never a dollar from the government, become aquired and then shut down.

They were closing operations long before any "downturn" or recession.

These companies would remain as viable enterprises if not aquired, and would continue to be leaders in technology and processes.

The government has talked down on manufacturing for decades pulling the machines shops out of school, making trades unattractive and renaming shop classes to whatever the current "Trend" is.

I don't hold my breath. The government doesn't believe in manufacturing, especially when those corporations with operations here are at the door wanting laws to build in China/South Korea etc. and have direct access to the North American consumer.

[Michael Hardner]

eyeball, What you're talking about is 'make work' and it has limited usefulness, especially when there is much work that needs doing. Well the country support 50% unemployment when there is work to be done ? No.

[Michael Hardner]

mmax,

QUOTE (Michael Hardner @ Feb 8 2009, 11:36 AM) *

You are correct. It isn't sustainable, however, the companies will survive. We are addressing those who lose their employment based upon boardroom decisions, where Canadian operations managers, plant managers, bean counters have no say, and only follow directives. The market works insofar as those working in retail find themselves unemployed when consumption declines, or competition and supply of retail goods exceeds demand. Lower prices perhaps, such as 70% off before christmas, then followed by closures of retail outlets.

The market is affected by variables. One of those variables that exists is the closure of profitable operations. This has an effect on not only the market but the Labour market and EI figures. It's one problem among many. It is one problem that hurts our economy.

So, why would a profitable operation close, then ? Why don't we start with examining that situation ?

I sat in a boardroom meeting one fine spring day. The New American owners had a great plan. "We are going to F*$K"... and the went on to list all the local CDN suppliers.

The plan was simple. The intent was to move the production to another location and use the cash cow (flow) of the Cdn operation to pay suppliers in the US. Do not pay CDN suppliers, move the CDN operation into bankruptcy. Part of doing this is to have the CDN operation do work for the foreign operation with the payment made to the US. It doesn't take very long to bankrupt a company. Buyout the leases on the important newer high tech equipment, and put leases on ones that were paid for so that you don't have to compete or pay for the equipment in bankruptcy auction. Create your own leasing company to do this. At the bankruptcy prevent the competition from aquiring the equipment or the information that the contracts of the operation where involved in price fixing to purposefully direct new contracts outside of Canada, make certain that the leasing company, which you own, will not lease to the "new operation" should a buyer appear.

Ok.

What we here might consider "fraud", is simply business. Or lets say, the "Market" in action.

The government is so far behind what needs to be done, that I doubt anything will happen, beyond them throwing money around at every turn, hoping and praying it was enough for them to get elected next time around.

My problem is watching the list of companies aquired in the last 3 years in my area , with long histories, and weathering every boom and bust with never a dollar from the government, become aquired and then shut down.

They were closing operations long before any "downturn" or recession.

These companies would remain as viable enterprises if not aquired, and would continue to be leaders in technology and processes.

The government has talked down on manufacturing for decades pulling the machines shops out of school, making trades unattractive and renaming shop classes to whatever the current "Trend" is.

There's also a 'trend' against blacksmithing as a viable industry.

I don't hold my breath. The government doesn't believe in manufacturing, especially when those corporations with operations here are at the door wanting laws to build in China/South Korea etc. and have direct access to the North American consumer.

Yes, and I have been debating this on both sides of the debate for 20 years now.

[madmax]

Not all. They have been shoveling money into the auto industry's gaping maw for decades.

Toyota, and all the other Autos, receive MONEY from the government. In the last decade, none of that money is tied to Jobs or employment. It is easier to see that the money that went to Toyota resulted in new operations, then it is to see that the "Technology Fund" monies to GM, went into a slush fund. Its not often you see a tech fund of 500million dollars go to an operation, and shortly after signed, 100 engineers are let go, and a new plant announced outside of Canada that is going to replace the current production of a profitable, successful and award winning facility.

Governments will shovel money at Auto, and smart ones used to demand jobs for that money. Now it is, "we will save jobs". Save them for what and from what???

That said, you tend to be like most in government, and most of the general public. Auto is manufacturing, and all other forms of manufacturing, you know, the other 13% of the 16% manufacturing base, don't exist. Well that is true, because other forms of manufacturing, having no profile politically, get jack squat. They are often productive, small and innovative. They have had to compete at the highest levels around the Globe and I still dread the day the next round of aquistions comes and picks these jewels off.

I personally am not wound up on the focus of Auto. People like to gab about it, and I have spent two stints in Auto Tech and Manufacturing. I wouldn't touch GM in Canada with a 10 foot pole, because there is nothing I have seen from them suggesting that they have had any intention but to shut down Canadian Operations, and would love some government money to help them along. Buy the employees a year or two But really, the bankruptcy laws could likely be enacted, and GM will "restructure" its way out of Ontario.

I would like to see Capital secured for companies that are smaller and efficient and are getting squeezed by the lending institutions. Smaller companies have no political power, and the programs designed to "aid" them are set up for "larger" manufacturers that do not exist any longer. The most productive operations are between 30 people and 200 people and it has been this way for nearly 2 decades. Governments don't care about operations of 50 people, or 200 people even if these are $5million to $80 million/year companies.

Pumps, Dog Food, Candy, Beef, bullet proof vests, fork lifts, harvesters, trailers, windows, doors, etc and pretty much anything you can think of, that isn't automotive, provides a hell of alot of jobs and some of these companies are in trouble or no trouble at all, but are closing down regardless and the 10,000s of thousands that just lost there jobs in Ontario weren't all Auto related. Auto is just catching up to the exodus.

Where we we ? The government was lobbying the US and was in the news daily, that's where. All I hear about today is auto sector jobs.

Auto has gotten the attention of government. Something other people laid off or closing have not been able to do. Part of the increased pressure has come from Retail Dealers associations and parts suppliers, all feeling that if Auto Collapses too quickly, they will go perish as well.

If that's the case, then why are we talking about giving money to GM now ?

If there are STrings, GM won't take it. They will go elsewhere to look for and receive money. GM is in the news. We like to forget that GM sold alot of Trucks and SUVs at top dollar and made huge profits off these sales. They didn't make all these products because they were stupid, they made them, because these products made GM a hell of alot of money. It is the same reason that everyone else maded these products. It wasn't fuel prices that brought these products into question. 1) GM planned to continue to build these profitable products elsewhere. Thus when we hear of an operation closing, that made these products, we think, oh they must be a turkey. That is not the case. They knew that they could make alot more money in relocating the assembly. In the meantime, the US started into a financial, and housing crises, and to which began the head of a recession. Big ticket items are the first to be put off, and this would affect GM greater then any other producer. Just to highlight the problem, there was a SHORT blip in fuel prices. The damage to GM was already in the works, but people choose to believe it was because of Gas Prices, it wasn't. Had there been long term high fuel costs, there could be merit to the argument. But having travelled through the US, fuel prices are considerably lower then here, and the SUVs on the roads were abundent during the period of high fuel prices. Today fuel in the US is pretty dam low.

So, why should we give GM money??? I haven't heard a good case from them yet

The problem is that it's an intellectual problem that is only debated emotionally, in the public sphere. If we really care about the people, then we need to stop telling their sad stories for a few minutes until we figure out the best way forward. Put first things first.

129,000 jobs isn't a "sad" story about us "caring about these people. It is a nightmarish statistic, completely unnoticed by these all knowing economists. The same idiot economists who missed the US financial meltdown, and a year on, missed the stock market collapse. The same economists that believe its better to produce value added jobs offshore, and we warehouse them.

Like I said, 5 major retail chains closed with 30 to 200 employees in each. This is no longer about just manufacturing. The exodus of manufacturing from Ontario from 2005 onward, particularly in 06 and 07 helped create alot of the downturn in consumer spending.

I recall talking to realator association last year. Housing sales were remarkably strong, infact, they had been having a run of banner years inspite of all the manufacturers that were leaving the region. I recall them saying that they didn't know when there wave would run out, and that it kept surprising them that housing sales continued to climb and so did the prices. My former Mechanical Engineer, former Bruce Nuclear, Former Ford Windsor, former... well, I couldn't tell you how many places he helped downsize, finally took the call to Real Estate.

A person who always manages to find the next ticket to success, is now moving out of real estate. Its starting to hit home fast, and he seems to be good at knowing when to get off the ship.

Like I mentioned earlier. This is the prelude. The 129,000 figure is significantly greater then anything previously recorded. It is too early to tell what this will mean compared to other downturns. But I do know that many of those closures, the announced ones, haven't happened yet. Many closures never hit the papers, so when these large closures dates come forward, rest assured there were be 7 or more jobs lost for each one you read in the paper.

[madmax]

mmax,

So, why would a profitable operation close, then ? Why don't we start with examining that situation ?

I agree. I am open to ideas on how.

There's also a 'trend' against blacksmithing as a viable industry.

I hear that "Coopers" are having a tough time of it I understand the point you are making.

However, there aren't alot of blacksmiths in China, South Korea, or Mexico either. Same goes for Coopers. It seems that the Employment that our government hasn't been interested in, is the employment that is lifting up their countries at our expense. To degree, possibly only the shortterm as I have no crystal ball, I don't see this as sustainable. But perhaps I am wrong as two things have happened. Mexico now produces more Cars then Canada. And China now purchases more Cars then the United States.

Which nicely leads into your next statement.

Yes, and I have been debating this on both sides of the debate for 20 years now.

That you know it is a one way street. Them to us, and them with protected markets. By the time we do have access to their markets, there won't be any value added aspect to our shipments. It will strictly be resources. Much like Canada was to England and France. A supplier of resources.

[eyeball]

eyeball, What you're talking about is 'make work' and it has limited usefulness, especially when there is much work that needs doing. Well the country support 50% unemployment when there is work to be done ? No.

What if there is no work? Why are you so sure there is? Myself I believe there's an enormous amount that needs to be done to restore the environment but since our economy still doesn't recognize the environment's role in producing the natural capital it needs to grow...it will be viewed as make-work and probably won't get done.

Do you believe the purpose of the ecomony should be to get back to some pre-existing 'healthier' state or move forward into a new one? I kind of doubt our ability to move forward into some pre-existing state so what is it?

[Alta4ever]

Don't these well PAID polticians know that this bill has to passed yesterday that people's lives depend on getting the help that they deserve and worked for?

You do realize that the implimentation bills still have yet to be passed for the budget.

It should also be noted for you that one of the problems with any government reaction is always too little too late with regard to the economy. By the time any of the stimulus budgets from Europe or North America are fully implemented this recession will be over.

[eyeball]

You do realize that the implimentation bills still have yet to be passed for the budget.

It should also be noted for you that one of the problems with any government reaction is always too little too late with regard to the economy. By the time any of the stimulus budgets from Europe or North America are fully implemented this recession will be over.

By that time OTOH we could just be reaching the end of the beginning.

[WIP]

And CHCH is on the rocks.

Now I feel bad that I hardly ever watch that station and their newscast.

[Progressive Tory]

No foresight, no plan and no hope for re-election.

No matter how you look at it, 129,000 jobs lost in one month is signicant; and more expected. Two local plants just announced that they'd be adding to the woes. 500 in one place and 200 in another.

When Harper told us not to worry, he either saw this coming and wasn't about to let us know during an election campaign; or as an economist makes a great shoe salesman.

Days ago he said that he wasn't going to let these latest figures take his party offtrack. When were they on track?

[Alta4ever]

No matter how you look at it, 129,000 jobs lost in one month is signicant; and more expected. Two local plants just announced that they'd be adding to the woes. 500 in one place and 200 in another.

When Harper told us not to worry, he either saw this coming and wasn't about to let us know during an election campaign; or as an economist makes a great shoe salesman.

Days ago he said that he wasn't going to let these latest figures take his party offtrack. When were they on track?

They have been on trck for quite a while they just haven't let people like you change the gauge.

[eyeball]

They have been on trck for quite a while they just haven't let people like you change the gauge.

So people like you who declared "recession, what recession" not so long ago are now predicting it'll be over before we know it. Such blind faith in capitalism is precisely what got us into this mess.

What's this gauge you're talking about, a finger in the wind or chicken guts?

[Alta4ever]

So people like you who declared "recession, what recession" not so long ago are now predicting it'll be over before we know it. Such blind faith in capitalism is precisely what got us into this mess.

What's this gauge you're talking about, a finger in the wind or chicken guts?

Gauge is the width of the train track, the USSR had a different gauge tack, as in the CPC is not turning to the looney left.

I never delcared what recession, but I don't fear them as they are short lived and even if I get laid off, I have saved for just that event.

recessions are a natural part of the economic cycle, they are a correction in price.

I have more faith in Capitalism then any other ism, as it is the one that has out lasted the rest. It has worked the best. Better bone up on your history.

[Michael Hardner]

madmax,

I agree. I am open to ideas on how.

Well, do you have any idea why companies purchase, then shut down well-managed operations ?

If it's because they are mistakenly thinking that they can manage things better then they might well fail in the long term.

That you know it is a one way street. Them to us, and them with protected markets. By the time we do have access to their markets, there won't be any value added aspect to our shipments. It will strictly be resources. Much like Canada was to England and France. A supplier of resources.

"Them", though, is multinational companies such as the ones that have shut down here. The arguments I sometimes hear that other countries prevent us from accessing their markets sound wrong to me.

Yes, resources and related industries are obviously an area in which we have an advantage. We also have an advantage in innovation, in many instances. This is, in my opinion, due to our unique position in the world labour markets - an ideal crossroads between the east and the west.

[Michael Hardner]

eyeball,

What if there is no work? Why are you so sure there is? Myself I believe there's an enormous amount that needs to be done to restore the environment but since our economy still doesn't recognize the environment's role in producing the natural capital it needs to grow...it will be viewed as make-work and probably won't get done.

Do you believe the purpose of the ecomony should be to get back to some pre-existing 'healthier' state or move forward into a new one? I kind of doubt our ability to move forward into some pre-existing state so what is it?

What if there is no work ? There is always work to be done. Digging holes and filling them in is make work, but creating healthier and better environments is not - providing people want that. And they do.

The purpose of the economy is to maximize the benefits to people who use it. We can only move forward. If we're moving towards something that already existed in the past, it's still moving forward.

[WIP]

recessions are a natural part of the economic cycle, they are a correction in price.

I have more faith in Capitalism then any other ism, as it is the one that has out lasted the rest. It has worked the best. Better bone up on your history.

The problem is you have faith in unbridled capitalism. This argument should have been settled in 1929, and the only reason we are still debating the merits of deregulation and the New Deal is because most people (even so called experts who write all the books) have short memories and rarely look back to learn lessons from history, when their theories were last tried.

Capitalism assumes that the players in a free market will act rationally and act in their own best interests; and guess what, they don't! Without regulations, they will behave with wreckless abandon in an effort to try to match the profit margins they see their fellow traders and executives are earning. And so we go through boom cycles and busts. But that's why regulations were put in place. The boom times may not be as great, but the recessions don't sink as deep either.

[Alta4ever]

The problem is you have faith in unbridled capitalism. This argument should have been settled in 1929, and the only reason we are still debating the merits of deregulation and the New Deal is because most people (even so called experts who write all the books) have short memories and rarely look back to learn lessons from history, when their theories were last tried.

Capitalism assumes that the players in a free market will act rationally and act in their own best interests; and guess what, they don't! Without regulations, they will behave with wreckless abandon in an effort to try to match the profit margins they see their fellow traders and executives are earning. And so we go through boom cycles and busts. But that's why regulations were put in place. The boom times may not be as great, but the recessions don't sink as deep either.

It was the NEw Deal is what cemented it, the New EDal Dragged the dpression on for another 6 years. The Huge bail out packages of the Day from Hoover had the effect of putting off the bottom of the economic cycle to 1933. Had there been no government intervetion in the markets the out come of that periode of histoy would have been one of deep recession not depression. we hav been through a couple more deep recessions but the great depression was still remebered by those in power and did not make the mistakes of Hoover and FDR. The new crop of politicians have forgotten this and I hope will not aggrevate the current sitution

[WIP]

It was the NEw Deal is what cemented it, the New EDal Dragged the dpression on for another 6 years. The Huge bail out packages of the Day from Hoover had the effect of putting off the bottom of the economic cycle to 1933. Had there been no government intervetion in the markets the out come of that periode of histoy would have been one of deep recession not depression. we hav been through a couple more deep recessions but the great depression was still remebered by those in power and did not make the mistakes of Hoover and FDR. The new crop of politicians have forgotten this and I hope will not aggrevate the current sitution

That is all new conservative fiction promulgated by Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talkers, and it is a total fiction that we have dealt with here previously. The U.S. economy bottomed out in 1933 because Herbert Hoover was in still in office until March of that year, and he stuck by his do nothing philosophy until he left office, and attempted to use his residual influence with Republican congressmen to disrupt Roosevelt's policies when he became president. Once Roosevelt became president, he introduced many of the banking reforms in his first 100 days in office that brought a return of confidence in the banking system and started the recovery process.

The lie that the New Deal was a failure is based on the economic decline that occured in 1938, which was caused by a pull back of funds from WPA and other projects because Roosevelt's advisers convinced him to move more aggressively at balancing the federal budget. The New Deal and Keynsian economic philosophy, was not part of Roosevelt's personal governing philosophy, and something he adopted out of desperation because little else was working.

One fact about the merits of economic stimulus during a depression, that the conservatives have no choice about acknowledging is that WWII brought a final end to the Depression, but the laissez-faire capitalists disregard the fact that the U.S. and other allied nations had to debt-finance and borrow heavily with no end in sight in order to finance that war. As an economic policy WWII was the greatest stimulus package of all.

[Alta4ever]

So what was the 160 million that herbert spent on wall street and tax credits? It was stimulus, it did nothing, and history is now repeating itself we have had a republican president do the same thing, now we have a democrat president following in FDRs foot prints you tell me, it looks like history is repeating itself and a whole bunch of meddling in the economy is going to do what it did then, make things worse.

[WIP]

So what was the 160 million that herbert spent on wall street and tax credits? It was stimulus, it did nothing, and history is now repeating itself we have had a republican president do the same thing, now we have a democrat president following in FDRs foot prints you tell me, it looks like history is repeating itself and a whole bunch of meddling in the economy is going to do what it did then, make things worse.

Thanks for proving my point!

You forgot to mention that Hoover's stimulus program to deal with the faltering economy after the Stock Market Crash, was not a jobs bill or even a policy of direct investment in the economy. Instead, Hoover provided low cost credit to the banks so that they would be financially solvent again and provide more loans to their customers..........is this where Hank Paulsen got the idea?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8120202938.html

The critics of trickle-down top down approaches to economic development have asked why not give the money directly to the people who have had their homes threatened with foreclosure and low to medium income earners who need the money desperately and will not buy new works of art to show off to their friends or pad their Cayman Island bank accounts.

[Alta4ever]

Thanks for proving my point!

I am failing to see how I am proving your point, it is the medling in the economy that creates the problem, even after FDR took over things seemd to be getting better until he had to scale back his stimulus program which had the only effect was artificially creating work as soon as the government tried to scale back in 38 so the private enterprise would take over ( as they realized that th level of government spending was not sustainable) the whole thing started to crash. It was the war that brought them out. Since then they have let every recession run its course which has had the effect of re-setting the markets renewing the economy and pushing us further.