Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterSun Editorial:
Why deficit has mushroomed
Analysis finds that Bush policies, economic recessions are largely to blame
Monday, June 15, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.
With bailouts of banks and automakers, an economic stimulus package and ambitious programs to address health care, energy and education, President Barack Obama is absorbing a lot of heat from critics who say he is chiefly responsible for driving up the nation’s budget deficit.
But those critics are full of hot air.
David Leonhardt, who writes an economics column for The New York Times and who worked for BusinessWeek magazine, analyzed nearly a decade’s worth of reports from the Congressional Budget Office.
His analysis centered on the fact that when President Bill Clinton completed his second term in January 2001 the budget office projected that the federal government would enjoy annual surpluses of more than $800 billion from 2009 to 2012. Instead, the U.S. is expected to have annual budget deficits of $1.2 trillion in those years, a negative swing of $2 trillion.
What Leonhardt found — as reprinted in a column Saturday in the Las Vegas Sun — is that the recession of 2001 and the current recession, coupled with the policies of former Republican President George W. Bush, is responsible for 70 percent of that swing.
Democrat Obama can be linked to the remaining 30 percent, but the bulk of that has to do with the continuation of Bush policies — including the Iraq war, Wall Street bailout and tax cuts — that are also supported by Republicans in Congress.
Only one-tenth of the negative swing can be tied directly to the stimulus package or to other domestic programs being pursued by Obama.
What this means is that Obama is wrongfully shouldering the lion’s share of blame for the nation’s budget problems, most of which he inherited.
We have said all along that Obama would be inheriting one mess after another from the Bush administration. What is getting tiresome is listening to critics of deficit spending who seem to have forgotten that this financial train wreck started long before Obama took office.
Discussion: 86 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- 6th arrest made in officer’s death; 5 face formal charges
- Shoppers guide to Black Friday in Las Vegas
- Harrah’s working on plan to take over Planet Hollywood
- Judge’s divorce filing follows arrest of her husband, a lawyer
- ‘DWTS’ champ Donny Osmond still deft afoot in return to Flamingo
- Kellogg Media Group files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
- Task force taking down mortgage scammers, one at a time
- UNLV zaps Holy Cross, 80-59
- Two years after Sports Illustrated feature, Bellfield says gamble paid off
- Contractors make another bid for Fontainebleau
Blogs
The Kats Report
For Paul Stanley and KISS, rock and roll is not over (1 Comment)
Twenty years ago today, Human Nature took root on the farm
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Photo Gallery: Donny Osmond’s triumphant return to the Flamingo
The Kats Report
'DWTS' champ Donny Osmond still deft afoot in return to Flamingo (7 Comments)
Politics: The Early Line
Meeting of GOP governors draws challengers, not Gibbons (3 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Oscar loves forcing developers to sign labor peace agreements, Culinary loves the city's downtown plans and all is forgiven (5 Comments)
Now and Then
Underdog is open on a post pattern
Calendar »
- 27 Fri
- 28 Sat
- 29 Sun
- 30 Mon
- 1 Tue
-
Bill Cosby at Treasure Island
Treasure Island Theatre
-
The Las Vegas Locomotives vs. the Florida Tuskers
Sam Boyd Stadium
-
Papa Roach at the House of Blues
House of Blues | 6:30 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Tuff-N-Uff at the Orleans
Mardi Gras Room | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
David Spade at the Venetian
The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
The problem as I see it, is, who is going to pay for all of these bailout programs, tax cuts, energy projects, education, healthcare programs, the list is ongoing and endless. Im sure that by now the total USA deficit is close to $60 trillion, all in all. You cant keep borrowing money, you cant keep printing money. There will come a day when it will all come to a dead end. If all of these programs are to be carried out during the next several years, the $bill will be huge, the GDP deficit will be well into triple figures, and then everybody can expect huge tax increase on just about everything, foodstuffs, gas, energy, housing, travel, you name it and it will have a huge tax% added to the normal price. There has been mentioned a $5 tax on a gallon of gas.
The Bush deficit was $455 billion in 2008.
All of what Obama inherited from Bush was just the $350 billion TARP I(a) cost.
Obama fought for, voted for, and got everything he wanted in TARP.
All the rest is Obama's free will determination to borrow and spend, pass into law and sign - resulting in a 2010 $2.0 trillion deficit.
The Obama 2009 budget increase is nearly 3.8 times bigger than 2008. Obama's budget overview will call for nearly $4 trillion in spending in fiscal year 2010 and creates space for up to $750 billion in additional bank TARP II bailout funds this year.
Since taking office Obama in 30 days, with help from Reid-Pelosi, has passed a $789 billion Stimulus II, a $350 billion TARP I(b), the $40 billion SCHIP, and a $410 billion 2009 Omnibus discretionary spending bill.
Democrats would not pass a 2009 budget in 2008 so they could wait for Obama to shape to their spending. Obama is projecting a $1.0 trillion 10-year cost of universal health care coverage.
Bush Budget 2001-2008
From the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.sht......) you will find that during the 8 years (FY-2001-2008) of Bush - the Revenue went up from $1,991.4 to $2,523.6 billion or 27% (3.4% per year) while the Outlays went from $1,863.2 to $2,978.5 billion or 60% (7.5% per year) resulting in an 8 year $2,001.9 billion deficit and a 2008 debt of $5802.9 Trillion. This raised the American debt to GDP ratio to about 40%. This raised the American debt to GDP ratio to about 40%.
To repeat revenue went up 3.4% per year and spending went up 7.5% per year.
Spending was Bush's problem and will be Obama's problem. The 8 year deficit included the $650 billion for two wars, hundreds of billions for post-9/11 homeland security, and budget items like $700 billion for Medicare prescription drugs.
While the 2007 deficit was just $160.7 billion it went up temporarily to $-454.8 billion in 2008 due to the recession and a $200 billion dollar 2008 stimulus I and it includes $180 billion for the surge in the Iraq war. Hence the core deficit without the war and stimulus in 2008 was $70 billion.
The expectation that Clinton was leaving a long term surplus is fiction and just not true.
Vice President Joe Biden would said "everyone guessed wrong".
It was based on the same types of budget ruses that we saw recently in the Harry Reid -- Nancy Pelosi lead Congress. Under Clinton the GDP was negative in the 2nd quarter of 2000 and the 1st quarter of 2001.
In 2001 we know that the actual surplus was already down to $127 billion for FY 2001.
Well down from the peak of $236 billion just the year before in FY-2000.
In 1999 Clinton/CBO forecast revenue in 2008 of $2,611 trillion. Actual Receipts for under Bush in 2008 were $2,523.6 trillion, a mere $87 billion lower than projected by Clinton nine years earlier.
At 18.8 percent of GDP, 2007 receipts were above the 40-year historical average of 18.3 percent.
The 2007 fiscal year marked the third year in a row in which receipts grew faster than GDP. It followed two years of double-digit growth in receipts in 2005 and 2006: 14.5 percent in 2005 and 11.8 percent in 2006.
Last time I checked the 2001 Bush tax cuts did what was intended they brought us out of the Clinton dot.com recession (that Bush inherited) and 9/11.
From the end of the Clinton recession January 2003, we had 4 years of major employment growth. In 2007 the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 1.7%.
How could Democrats forget the Clinton recession?
- The long 17-month contraction in the ISM manufacturing index starting in July of 2000, causing the lost of millions of manufacturing jobs, which helped drive the country into recession.
- The unemployment rate went from 3.9% (Dec 2000) up to 6.0% (Dec 2002)
- The March 24, 2000 to October 9, 2002 S&P 500 Index drop of 49.1% was caused in part by a need by people to sell stock to pay increased taxes.
- Median Household income crest at $42,000 in 1999, and dropped in 2000 and 2001.
- Corporate debt increased by 125% between 1995 and 1999 to $2.6 trillion; and corporate tax shelter trickery (Enron, Global Crossing, and Tyco) took off.
- Real GDP was just 0.5% in 2001.
Obama and Biden are going back to Carter and Clinton for a redistribution economic model which is proven failure.
WOW! Who gave drugs to the Sun staff? This is about as far out as the Associated Press defining a recession as being a reduction in government tax revenue.
"Future" et al-
Believe it or not, wars aren't cheap. If you are so "concerned" about the deficit now, why didn't you ask Bush why he wanted to start two wars we couldn't afford? And offer corporate tax breaks we couldn't afford? And create an entire "Department of Homeland Security" that we couldn't afford?
Maybe if the economy weren't in the tank, we could afford to worry about the deficit. But now, we don't need austerity... We need help!
And btw, who really thinks we'd be in such a nasty mess now if the rightfully elected President were inaugurated in 2001?
We should not be giving Congress a free pass in this. Those serving in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate are the ones who vote and decide what will be spent and on what it will be spent on. If we were to do some checking we might find that the leadership of the Congress (as well as being the same folks in charge of the majority party) has been the same for the past three years (including the last two years of the Bush Administration. Perhaps if we want to hold somebody accountable, we should consider the person who will be seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate from Nevada in 2010 -- he is after all one of the leaders involved in getting us to where we are.
More confirmation of the disastrous fiscal policies of the Bush administration, and the republicans in the House and Senate who wrote him a blank check... like Senator John Ensign.
The radical right-wing ideologues who would excuse such fiscal irresponsibility like Future2012, err, Future, err, whatever name he'll come up with next, hold some of the blame as well.
These are the same ideologues who threw hissy fits with tea parties earlier this year, but never during the 8 years of economic malfeasance of the Bush administration.
It's all fun and games when a republican is at the wheel, but when you get a Democrat in office, suddenly they get all uptight about "wasteful spending" on healthcare, of all things!
Hypocrites.
ksand99.....
Well said. Like you, I get a real kick out of the right-wingers who now have become big time fiscal conservatives since the Democrtas have taken over.....
The right-wingers have a bad case of "selective amnesia." They never said a word about the spending that went on when the retarded man from Texas was in the White House. They backed his unneeded war in the Middle East and looked the other way when George spent money like a "drunken sailor on leave" and borrowed from any one and every one in order to give his rich buddies a huge tax cut......
Yep, "selective amnesia."
Future!
From the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.sht.........) you will find that during the 8 years (FY-2001-2008) of Bush - the Revenue went up from $1,991.4 to $2,523.6 billion or 27% (3.4% per year) while the Outlays went from $1,863.2 to $2,978.5 billion or 60% (7.5% per year) resulting in an 8 year $2,001.9 billion deficit and a 2008 debt of $5802.9 Trillion. This raised the American debt to GDP ratio to about 40%. This raised the American debt to GDP ratio to about 40%.
Why don't you see the facts in your post showing that outlays increased 60% (7.5% per year).
Oh, sorry, outlays mean spendding, and the debt rose 40%, no double-talk, it is in your post.
Comical that Bush can be blamed for 2001 recession, which started November, 2000, when he wasn't even president. But the NYT is hardly an unbiased source. How have things been since dumbocrats took over congress in Jan 2007? The Pelosi/Reid/Obama Democrat Congress accumulated more deficit in 2 years than the Republican congress did in 12 years!
lets not forget left wingers....the last 4 years of the Bush admin, had a Dem. controlled congress...congress, who is in charge of spending....yes, your prized Dems, ....lets also not forget for those that blame all on bush because of a war..your beloved Dems, also voted YES to go to war...also continued to vote to continue to FUND the war.....but, no no no , we must still blame bush...still blame bush....news media says blame bush, we must blame george bush
Time for yet another installment of wingnut rhetoric vs. reality!
Wingnut Rhetoric: The last 4 years of the Bush admin, had a Dem. controlled congress!!!!!!!!
Reality: The Democrats did not take control of the House or Senate until January, 2007.
Unfortunately for those of us who cannot count, January 2007-January 2009 is not four years.
I guess the people forgot about the expansion of regulation under Bush or the doubling of funding for healthcare, education and transportation. Bush did help create a lot of problems for our country, but it wasn't because of limiting government or deregulating the economy. Obama is simply Bush II on steroids.
Time to pay the piper. The last eight years of bumbling was not without cost. Mr. Obama is trying to lay the ground work for future recovery and its going to cost us. Did anyone think it wouldn't? Mr. Chaney is being very vocal about national security but pretty much silent about the economy. Mr. Bush knows to keep his mouth shut concerning his mishandling of the economy. I will give him credit on that. "Better to remain silent and be thoutht a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
The Obama excuse machine is already cranking up.
In 3 years, it will be in OVERDRIVE MODE.
T
I always thought the USA debt was much higher.....
In 2007, the public debt was 36.8 percent of GDP,[4] with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[5] As of 2007, the debt of the United States ranked as the 22nd-largest in the world as a percentage of GDP.[6] As of June 2009 the debt was 82.5 percent of GDP based on current GDP
Or are we talking about different ways of measuring it.
El Lobo said "The right-wingers have a bad case of "selective amnesia." They never said a word about the spending that went on when the..."
El Lobo, seems like you are doing the EXACT same thing with President Obama. It really isn't unpatriotic to question those in authority and the decisions they are making.
Future: Your smoke and mirrors accounting is a joke. Bush failed on every level; cut to the bottom line: Total public debt outstanding on 1/20/2001 = 5.727 Trillion, Total public debt outstanding on 1/19/2009 = 10.629 Trillion. Source United States Treasury http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogi...
Bush kept billions in 'emergency spending' off-budget (war spending being the largest). Obama has ended this game of off-budget spending.
"I guess the people forgot about the expansion of regulation under Bush"
I guess because most people are not delusional.
2 things.
1. i'd like to know how much of the deficit was caused by Bush, minus the costs of the two recessions (how much of that 70% is caused by Bush himself)
2. what is obama going to do about it? can talk about inheriting his problems all he wants, but if all he wants to do is give excuses and not work towards fixing it, he ain't no better.
The deficit is a result of bad policies by both the DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS. Left wing and Right wing spending have not produced a truely balanced budget. As a result of legally changing the government accounting since the Reagan years, Social Security surpluses have been counted in the general revenue fund yet the liabilities are forgotten.
What do expect when most of Congress and Presidents over the last 2 decades are lawyers and not accountants. America wake up before it is to late! Republicans and Democrats are selling you and your childrens future to the highest campaign contributor.
Gordon,
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oHKds8gsAEk/Sc...
http://www.writeonnevada.com/2009/03/wha...
You too can consult the Federal Register and see for yourself...there was no deregulation under Bush...
Oh look Gordon a 2005 article from the Cato Institute accusing GB II as being the biggest spender since Johnson http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
There are many examples of how Bush and the Republicans became the party of big government - doing just the opposite of what they claimed to be about.
I've put facts ahead of ideology and reality ahead of rhetoric.
jldour said:
El Lobo said "The right-wingers have a bad case of "selective amnesia." They never said a word about the spending that went on when the..."
"El Lobo, seems like you are doing the EXACT same thing with President Obama. It really isn't unpatriotic to question those in authority and the decisions they are making."
Yes, it's not unpatriotic to speak out against ones government. Of course, I was told several times by right-wingers (when George was working his magic...) that I should move to Canada due to my views about the Iraq War & the out of control Bush budget...
Yes, Obama has spent a lot of money since he entered the White House but a large portion of that money is aimed at turning around a Bush economy that is in the crapper...
In some ways, Obama has taken a page out of FDR's New Deal note book. It's too early to tell if what Obama is doing will work.
I guess Obama could do what Herbert Hoover did when the Great Depression hit in October of 1929.....NOTHING! That worked real well didn't it?
When FDR took over in March of 1933, 23.8% of the work force was unemployed..........that's not counting the farmer labor, which if added into the mix, would have pushed the unemployed numbers over 30%.
Give Obama a little wiggle room and see what happens. He's been in office less than 6 months... With the economy that Obama inherited from George Bush, there's little room to go but up! Actually, we haven't hit the bottom yet. The unemployment numbers may go beyond 10% before they start to turn around.....patience is the watch word!
Obama has to bring the troops home from Iraq and solve the problems we face in Afghanistan.....both of those problems have cost the economy dearly........at one point in time, we were spending in excess of $2 billion a week in Iraq.......not peanuts by any one's accounting....Of course, all that money we've been spending in the Middle East was money that we didn't have.
When will people get it?
It's not Obama vs. Bush or Republican vs. Democrat. This political blame game is a red herring designed to shield those who intend to alter our nation's founding political structure of republicanism and federalism. It does not matter their party, they all are culpable. There is a struggle going on for economic control, Washington politicians are fighting very hard to consolidate it in Washington. First it was Wall St., then it was Detroit, next it will be control over your city, and eventually over you (what do you think so called 'healthcare reform' is for!).
It is this Washington Political Machine (WPM) which keeps chugging along regardless who is in the Oval Office. Yes, it has picked up a tremendous amount of fury over the last year and three months and particularly so under Obama's first six months. But, it has been going strong since the early 20th century, gaining steam post-WWII. It will continue until people stand to defend their rights and liberties.
El Lobo, you are absolutely correct that those on the right did not hold Bush accountable for reckless spending and other decisions. I also know that INDIVIDUALS on both sides like to spout off and tell someone who disagrees with their view should love it or leave it. We both know that is not the attitude of Republicans or Democrats as a whole. But if Democrats don't speak up, when say a 780 billion dollar spending bill is signed without time to even read it, or when the President vowed zero tolerance for ear marks and thousands were signed off on, or close Gitmo with no plan on what to do with people who want to do us harm, then nothing is going to change. Right or wrong Democrats in power don't really care what Republicans say, they have the power.
El Lobo, you and I both want what is best for the country, an end to the wars, the economy to turn around and so on. The best way for that to happen is to view WHOEVER is in power with a skeptic eye and question decisions.
"I guess Obama could do what Herbert Hoover did when the Great Depression hit in October of 1929.....NOTHING! That worked real well didn't it?"
El Lobo this history is incorrect. Herbert Hoover and the federal government did quite a lot and that is why the recession turned into a depression. Historical revisionism suggests he did nothing when in actuality FDR actually copied much of his work and expanded upon it.
Here is a short read on the subject: http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=...
Furthermore, economists generally consider the New Deal to be the main reason why the depression lasted as long as it did.
Partick_R_Gibbons said:
"Herbert Hoover and the federal government did quite a lot and that is why the recession turned into a depression. Historical revisionism suggests he did nothing when in actuality FDR actually copied much of his work and expanded upon it."
I've argued with people such as you many, many times about the Great Depression and what Hoover did or didn't do to stem the tide of the depression.
Sorry but you are incorrect on several of your points....
Hoover did very little (in the beginning) in terms of dealing with the Great Depression. Sure, he held meetings with his Cabinet and business men but his personal beliefs about what caused the depression and what was needed in terms of dealing with the depression were based around a "wait & see attitude..." He started a few public works program, but small by comparison to what FDR would do later on....
In defense of Hoover, he did persuade local and state governments to increase public works spending. The problem was that most states simply did not have the resources to do that...
Hoover was caught up in his belief in "Rugged Individualism" which, by the way was the center piece of his inaugural address in 1929.
Hoover believe that if left alone, the depression would end without government intervention....He believed that once government got involved in creating jobs, handing out direct relief to the unemployed, and regulating the economy in any way, individual spirit and individual initiative would be pretty much destroyed.
Hoover, unlike FDR, refused to allow the federal government to give any type of direct relief to the unemployed and he didn't believe the federal government should create jobs although he did create some......in his mind, that was the responsibility of state, local government and the capitalistic system...
As time went on, after 1930, members of his own party demanded that Hoover get the federal government involved more in an attempt to fight the Great Depression.....Hoover, with much reservation, did so but he felt that government intervention in the long run would hurt the economy and slow down the recovery effort..
I find it interesting when President Herbert Hoover took office in 1929, the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent. When Hoover left office in 1933, it was 23.8 percent.
Hoover was a very stubborn man who found it difficult to respond to the many problems created by the Great Depression. Again, he was convinced that the economy would fix itself if left alone......I'm sure many on this board probably believe that...maybe YOU!
In short, Hoover was an outstanding public servant, but he was not the man needed to handle the many problems of the Great Depression...FDR was.......with out FDR's New Deal, there would have been a revolution in the country.
government intervention is never the answer. that's why the depression lasted so damn long. the government thought it was helping when it was actually harming the economy!
i just look at our politicians and wonder why anyone would trust most of these guys(and gals) to fix anything. look who we have! we have a community activist/professor/lawyer running the country along with a career politician/lawyer and a veterinarian representing our state.
these guys have never really run anything in their lives, but people actually trust them to run the entire country???
cjc702 said:
"government intervention is never the answer. that's why the depression lasted so damn long. the government thought it was helping when it was actually harming the economy!"
Sorry but I don't agree.... I'm not alone with my beliefs, however. Most of the historians who have researched & written about the Great Depression pretty much agree that the New Deal was a good thing for the country.
One of my favorite historians who has researched & written much on the Great Depression and World War II is David Kennedy, professor at Stanford.
Kennedy says that with out the New Deal, a revolution would have taken place some time during the early 1930's. I agree with that assessment.....
Then you've debated people who are as misinformed as you are, you've only repeated mythical rhetoric.
But lets start with the Federal Reserve, which Milton Friedman blames for the cause of the Great Depression. Both Friedman and Austrians throw a great deal of blame at the Federal Reserve thought, at least to me, neither can agree on the chronology of the periods of inflationary and deflationary policy undertaken by the fed. Both do agree that there was a massive drop in the money supply. Either way, the result was complete mayhem in the supply of money and credit in the United States. Friedman further contends that the government created Federal Reserve completely and utterly mismanaged the banking crisis (so to say this was a time of "hands off" economics is utterly absurd -- the government regulation was there and it failed).
Additionally Friedman and others cite FDR's early 1932 campaign in which he attacked Hoover for his fiscal irresponsibility and extravagant spending (he would also tell others he would increase spending and create new government programs -- I guess the media wasn't all that swift back then).
Unemployment and the depression. In 1929 unemployment was about 3.2%. By 1930 it had grown to about 9% and it wasn't until 1933 that unemployment peaked as FDR took office. You claim that nothing happened and that is why things got bad. But a lot more happened than a Federal Reserve screw up.
Lets Review
1930 -- Smoot and Hawley Tariff Act -- US government raises taxes on imported goods in an attempt to boost domestic production, but foreign nations retaliate with tariffs on their own brining international trade to a virtual standstill and almost killing the US import and export industries.
Hoover instituted schemes to ensure high wages (great for high skilled workers but bad for low skilled workers which now found it harder to find employment.
The government drastically increased spending, growing from 16% of GNP in 1930 to over 21% by 1931. (see the drastic increase in spending from 1930 onward here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/down...) He gave subsidies to farmers and to businesses. The government increased taxes to pay for this new spending, including taxes on writing checks (which really made the money supply problem worse). The top marginal income tax rate went from 25% to 63% between 1931 and 32.
One of FDR's advisors, Rexford Tugwell, later wrote "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."
The idea that FDR saved our economy and that Hoover was lassie faire is nothing but fanciful myth. The facts simply do not support these assertions.
El lobo,
Yes many historians seem to agree about FDR's policies and its effects on the country and ending the Great Depression. Economists however are not in agreement. A significant portion of economists actually believe the New Deal made things worse. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR...
In fact a simple qualitative analysis would lend any reasonable historian to the same conclusion. If you examine any recession in US history before or after the Great Depression none have been as long. In fact the Great Depression is 3 to 4 times longer than any economic downturn in US history. It also happens to be the most heavily intervene economic crisis in US history (although Bush/Obama are certainly putting FDR to the test).
Oh and don't forget about the Emergency Relief and Construction Act (public works): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_R...
and I partially mentioned the Reconstruction Finance Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruct...
but forgot to mention it also offered bailouts for poorly managed states (not unlike the recent state bailouts).
Patrick_R_Gibbons......
Of the many recessions/depressions that this country has suffered through (I once counted between 10 & 15), I can think of only one other recession/depression (maybe our current recession should be added to the list) that was actually a world wide recession/depression.
That was the Depression of 1873. It lasted 23 years & had no government intervention.... Isn't that interesting?
Of course, that's one reason the Great Depression is called just that......the Great Depression. It was world-wide and it was very, very severe.....
With that being said, the Great Depression started first in Europe during the 1920's and came to the United States in 1929 with the stock market crash.....
Nations such as Germany & Italy were devastated by the economic situation of the 1920's. France & Great Britain weren't much better off.
In other words, the Great Depression wasn't just an American thing. Maybe that's why it lasted as long or longer than most of the other recessions/depressions that struck the United States....
Keep in mind that many of the other American recessions/depressions were around longer than what most people believe. For example:
Depression of 1807......lasted 7 years.
Panic of 1819...........lasted 5 years.
Panic of 1837...........lasted 6 years.
Depression of 1873......lasted 23 years.
To say that government intervention is what lengthened the Great Depression is a weak argument at best.... I'm sure you don't believe that.....Right?
Patrick_R_Gibbons said:
"If you examine any recession in US history before or after the Great Depression none have been as long. In fact the Great Depression is 3 to 4 times longer than any economic downturn in US history."
I believe your getting pretty fast & loose with the facts aren't you? I posted information clearly pointing out that you are incorrect when you said no other depression was as long as the Great Depression. Look at my previous post...
You're also stretching the truth with your statement that "the Great Depression is 3 to 4 times longer than any economic downturn in US history." That's simply not true....
You need to do a better job with your research.....your current research is weak at best...
Mr Lobo,
"Depression of 1807......lasted 7 years.
Panic of 1819...........lasted 5 years.
Panic of 1837...........lasted 6 years.
Depression of 1873......lasted 23 years."
Please send me your source because I have seen no one make such claims... ever. Most economists agree that the longest economic crisis in the US was was just 4 years (3 times shorter than the Great Depression which is pinned usually at 12, though few contend it lasted from 1929 to 1945).
GDP (in thousands) and GDP per capita from 1873 to 1896 - quite a depression as the GDP and GDP per capita grew very well. Part of the problem it seems is that economic historians don't know what a depression is. I've read that the 1870s faced a short economic crisis but the overall decade was one of falling prices not economic depression.
1873 $122.5 $2,834
1874 $124.7 $2,808
1875 $124.5 $2,737
1876 $129.7 $2,791
1877 $136.1 $2,872
1878 $140.5 $2,908
1879 $156.9 $3,184
1880 $169.9 $3,380
1881 $191.1 $3,714
1882 $201.3 $3,805
1883 $206.8 $3,800
1884 $203.4 $3,644
1885 $204.1 $3,573
1886 $220.7 $3,789
1887 $236.8 $3,989
1888 $250.4 $4,131
1889 $257.6 $4,162
1890 $282.6 $4,482
1891 $285.9 $4,438
1892 $300.5 $4,559
1893 $283.1 $4,195
1894 $269.6 $3,913
1895 $300.5 $4,288
1896 $295.5 $4,151
PS, I've provided you two sources which you can read on the subject - one of them is a UCLA economist. Please don't say my research is faulty when I'm quoting actual research and you're quoting debated wikipedia articles.
Finally, why don't you address the other points I made.
How is increasing taxes, fumbling the money supply, creating inflation and later deflation) destroying international trade (Via stupid law), adding subsidies and bailouts and artificial wages, "hands off" free market economics?
Lets do some fun comparisons: Last 23 years compared to El Lobo's "Long Depression"
US 1985 to 2008
Consumer Price Index 3.06%
Real GDP 2.89%
Real GDP per capita 1.80%
US 1873 to 1896
Consumer Price Index -1.53%
Real GDP 3.90%
Real GDP per capita 1.67%
The "Long Depression" saw an annualized growth rate in the consumer price index (inflation) fall by -1.5% per year. Compare that to today where inflation has been higher than the growth rate of GDP. Furthermore the annualized growth rate in GDP was higher in the long depression than recently.
Some depression.
I think someone's had too much sugar tonight.
Its the only way to have fun with economics!
Patrick_R_Gibbons......
I can see that you are attempting to "cherry pick" when it comes to comparing your sources with mine....I kind of expected that. I guess a wikipedia article just doesn't hold up to one of your sources......darn those wikipedia articles.
Also "heck" with the information that I might lift from an American historian such as David Kennedy. After all, Kennedy probably didn't deserve any of the awards he's received for his research & writing. He's probably a fraud...
His 2000 Pulitzer Prize for History must have been a mistake. The book "Freedom From Fear - The American People In Depression and War" written by Kennedy probably ignores certain facts and makes up other information to get the intended message across.......why didn't I think of that?
My statement that you were playing with the facts, sort of fast & loose, I stand behind. To say that the Great Depression lasted 3-4 times longer than any other recession or depression that this country has had is total nonsense.
"Freedom From Fear" Copyright 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rec...
The Great Depression: America in the 1930s by T. H. Watkins
Voices of the Great Depression: The 1930's by Cinda Anderson
Patrick_R_Gibbons...said:
"The "Long Depression" saw an annualized growth rate in the consumer price index (inflation) fall by -1.5% per year. Compare that to today where inflation has been higher than the growth rate of GDP. Furthermore the annualized growth rate in GDP was higher in the long depression than recently."
Hmmmmm...I wasn't aware that there were economists around at that time (1873-1896) with the tools (information) available to produce that kind of data...they actually kept that kind of data????? Sure could have fooled me.....
I guess all those historians who call it the "Long Depression" must be all wrong......darn those historians!!
Hmmmmm....on the other hand, maybe its just a case of the old saying that "statistics don't lie but statisticians do..." Heck that couldn't be it.....
El Lobo,
"I can see that you are attempting to "cherry pick" when it comes to comparing your sources with mine....I kind of expected that. I guess a wikipedia article just doesn't hold up to one of your sources......darn those wikipedia articles."
Ironically you accuse me of cherry picking when you haven't addressed my points. The wikipedia articles don't hold up because when I read them - the Long Depression for example, is highly debated - furthermore several others don't provide end dates in the article.
"His 2000 Pulitzer Prize for History must have been a mistake. The book "Freedom From Fear - The American People In Depression and War" written by Kennedy probably ignores certain facts and makes up other information to get the intended message across.......why didn't I think of that?"
Again, ironically, Paul Krugman (a Nobel prize winning economist whom I disagree with on many issues) along with democrat economist Brad DeLong think Kennedy is a complete idiot. Maybe he is, I don't know, I do know that a 23 year period of economic growth does NOT constitute a depression. Deflation is NOT depression. For more information on this subject consult Milton Friedman and Anna Swartz' book "A Monetary History of the United States" or if you are too lazy you can either read about it on Wikipedia or check out this: http://www.measuringworth.org/usgdp/ "YES there was data on the US economy we can go back quite a ways. In fact, economics has been a sound subject of philosophy for more than 500 years its own subject for 200.
Now please address my points -- how is raising taxes, stopping international trade, messing up the money supply, regulating banking, artificial wages, and corporate/state bailouts and job programs laissez-faire?
That's what NPRI does...
They assume their conclusions, then cherry pick data and distort statistics in order to support that conclusion.
It's why they lack any and all credibility and have to rely on funding from radical right-wingers like Sheldon Adelson in order to survive.
and yet Ksand has never been able to prove his accusations - oh and totally unwilling considering I offered to give him my data sets.
Unable to prove my accusation? How much did Greenspun Hall cost to build, per square foot?
Patrick: You support your argument with a link to YOUR blog, what a joke.
I guess if you use the size of the CFR as your benchmark for regulations, then you would be correct. However, that is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard from someone who claims to have economic expertise. So a 400 page amendment that DEregulates an industry, the 100's of pages of loopholes, and the added clarifications are all increasing regulations in your mind. The rulebook for ANYTHING will evolve and grow.
Following your logic you could say that the growth in GDP is due to the growth in size of the federal register.
Now you're arguing back to the 1800's. Do you really think that's a legitimate comparison? You really believe that today's world economy is similar to that of the 1800's? I realize you hate anything that government does, but your opinions are outdated. I'm sure you'd love the lawless wild west to return, but most of us enjoy a civilized society.
Your economic views are only shared by the minority group of economists. I'm glad Bernanke is a scholar on the Great Depression and understands what worked and what did not.
One statement you made I do agree with: "There are many examples of how Bush and the Republicans became the party of big government - doing just the opposite of what they claimed to be about."
Patrick_R_Gibbons said:
"Now please address my points -- how is raising taxes, stopping international trade, messing up the money supply, regulating banking, artificial wages, and corporate/state bailouts and job programs laissez-faire? "
I'm not sure what your point is....First of all, a complete laissez-faire economy always runs well for a while but then sooner or later, crashes and burns.
The same thing can be said about supply-side economics. The George Bush administration tried to use supply-side economic (tax breaks to the corporate rich for example...) and guess what? That's one reason were in the mess were in....I would be surprised if you believed that, but what's new?
I never will forget what George sr. said about supply-side economics....do I need to tell you? Has "selective amnesia" taken over for you?
Some times it necessary to raise taxes.....even George sr. found that out....remember when he said "read my lips, no new taxes?"
The last time I looked, I didn't see evidence of the Obama administraion stopping international trade....any proof of that happening?
As far as messing up the money supply, the Bush administration did a pretty good job of that....the dollar lost over 40% of its value against the Euro during the time junior was living in the White House...
Of course George could have just printed more money (which he didn't do, thank god...) or he could do what he did......just borrow, borrow, & borrow from any one & every one....Thank you China! We're now in hock to you....
The fact that banks were not regulated during the 8 years George was in the White House contributed to our present economic debacle. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by a Republican controlled Congress back in 1999, allowed the banks to do some things that was good for then for a while but later caused problems for the economy as a whole......you probably don't believe that....
Artificial wages? What are you talking about? Maybe the minimum wage law? Care to explain? Maybe you're talking about the old "iron law of wages" concept?
I can see that you're from the Herbert Hoover school of economics.....If a problem exist. just ignore it & it will go away? Right? Wasn't that what McCain's economic advisor (Phil Gramm) said during the presidential campaign?
That's the same guy who sponsored the bill that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in '99. The real you is starting to come out.... Maybe you're not really a right-winger at all...does the name Ron Paul rings a bell for you?
I would love to see where (link or two...) Paul Krugman and democrat economist Brad DeLong said Kennedy is a complete idiot. Don't make me wait too long, OK?
Its been fun while it lasted but this is getting to be a major bore. I've enjoyed our little give & take but you and I will NEVER agree on most things that have to do with history or politics...Why belabor the process? I don't plan to....
Gordon,
"You support your argument with a link to YOUR blog, what a joke."
You mean the graph? I told you to check out the federal register yourself. The federal register is a listing of daily federal regulatory activity. The length of the register tells us how involved the government is in the private sector from year to year. The graph accurately portrays the number of pages on the register - there is no deception. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
El Lobo, from Brad Delong's website: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/10/da...
includes email conversation between Delong and Krugman.
El Lobo you are full of rhetoric and hot air and are short facts.
Before you go on to present day troubles, answer my questions on the Great Depression - stop avoiding it.how is raising taxes, stopping international trade, messing up the money supply, regulating banking, artificial wages, and corporate/state bailouts and job programs laissez-faire?
Ksand,
It is a $93.7 million building http://www002.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/...
Whether this is construction cost or it is construction cost plus install/furnishing cost I do not know.
In the "worst case" senario (cheapest) the building cost $780 a square foot to build and furnish...
Have you gone downtown to get the information on the build cost or something? I look forward to hearing it.
"In the "worst case" senario (cheapest) the building cost $780 a square foot to build and furnish..."
93.7 million dollars, divided by the 121,000 square feet of the building? Your assertion is that is $780 per square foot.
Are you beginning to understand why NPRI lacks any credibility? My nine year old niece could tell you your math doesn't add up.
Oh wow, you certainly have proved your point, $774 vs. $780.
In full disclosure the Sun article says 120,000 square feet which comes to $780.83 cents... again sorry for rounding.
Wow, what would the progressive movement do without your earth shattering myth busting skills?
So you were too lazy to look up the actual data?
You also realize NPRI's website states this not as an estimate, but as a fact, right?
If you or your organization are too lazy to do your own fact-checking, surely you understand why your credibility comes into question so often.
My point is that you, and by extension your organization, are lazy and fact-challenged, as you have displayed so brilliantly right here.
or you just make up complaints, never prove your points and don't know how to do basic math?
"My point is that you, and by extension your organization, are lazy and fact-challenged, as you have displayed so brilliantly right here."
pure comedic gold coming from you. Have you heard of the word "ironic"?
Make up complaints? I said NPRI distorts data. I asked you a really simple question to illustrate such distortion. You asserted a number based off of bad information, thus, distorting data.
This just further illustrates how bizarre NPRI treats basic data. You've even acknowledged that the $780 per square foot, cited in "NPRI's Recommendations for Cost-Cutting and Reform," is false.
If your organization can't perform DIVISION, a hallmark of 3rd and 4th grade elementary education, why should anyone find it credible?
WOW. Quite a spectacular faceplant by the NPRI guy. Simple math, dude.
Make up complaints?"
Yes as in your constant changing of your mind when trying to make points. For example, changing your argument from math to sources on a whim.
"I said NPRI distorts data. I asked you a really simple question to illustrate such distortion. You asserted a number based off of bad information, thus, distorting data."
Bad information? Are you saying the Las Vegas Sun is a bad source of information? I happen to think it is a well written and researched newspaper -- even as much as I disagree with the editorial board. Should I have reason to believe the Las Vegas Sun lied about this or distorted the information?
Furthermore, if your point really was on original sources, have you actually gone down to Clark County and examined the plans for the building? I think you're just stretching for a complaint.
"This just further illustrates how bizarre NPRI treats basic data. You've even acknowledged that the $780 per square foot, cited in "NPRI's Recommendations for Cost-Cutting and Reform," is false."
Really, we said it was false? I checked the report and I said nothing of the sort.
"If your organization can't perform DIVISION, a hallmark of 3rd and 4th grade elementary education, why should anyone find it credible?"
Right $93.7 million divided by 121,000 sq/ft is $774.38 and divided by 120,000 sq/ft it is $780.83. Your problem isn't that I cannot do division (or maybe you actually can't and you came up with a wrong number) but that you are really stretching to make a point -- seriously a $4 difference has got you up in arms?
Clearly, if NPRI were as bad as you say, you would be able to come up with something better than this...or it may be time for you to change your screen name.
watch out... when a certain someone gets their dander up, the hissy fits start a' flyin'!
Let me get back to the main point of KSAND for his cheerleaders:
"Oh wow, you certainly have proved your point, $774 vs. $780.
In full disclosure the Sun article says 120,000 square feet which comes to $780.83 cents... again sorry for rounding.
Wow, what would the progressive movement do without your earth shattering myth busting skills?"
Honestly, Gmag, Thebs...Is your progressive friendship more important than abandoning all rationality?
He is suddenly mighty touchy, isn't he gmag?
UNLV's website clearly lists the square footage of the building, Patrick. A little simple division gets you much closer to the actual amount per square foot.
"Right $93.7 million divided by 121,000 sq/ft is $774.38 and divided by 120,000 sq/ft it is $780.83. Your problem isn't that I cannot do division (or maybe you actually can't and you came up with a wrong number) but that you are really stretching to make a point -- seriously a $4 difference has got you up in arms?"
Never mind. You guys really do fail at basic math.
780.83 - 774.38 = 6.45, not "a $4 difference."
And yes, when you're talking about hundreds of thousands of square feet, it really does make a difference... of over a million dollars for the building.
So y'all aren't so good at division or subtraction. Do you fudge every number, or is this the only one?
Why don't you stop digging your grave and call it a day, Patrick.
"Oh wow, the master of myth busting is back. Is this as best as you can do. Rounding...rounding as got you all hacked off? $780 instead of $780.83? $780 instead of $774.38? 121,000 square feet instead of 120,000 square feet? Why did the Sun get it off by 1,000? Do you really think it is so even? What if UNLV rounded?
Seriously, your complaint is bogus. You are simply stretching to find something to complain about, nothing more.
120,000 sq/ft
http://www.ramsa.com/project.aspx?id=72
120,000 sq/ft http://maps.unlv.edu/gua.html
120,000 sq/ft http://www.bdcnetwork.com/article/CA6644...
120,000 sq/ft http://urbanaffairs.unlv.edu/about/green...
Seriously your complaint has no merit - it is nitpicking at nothing.
120k http://www.gostructural.com/article.asp?...
120k http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/dec...
120k http://urbanaffairs.unlv.edu/news.html?U...
http://unlvrebelyell.com/2008/09/11/gett...
http://www.directdimensions.com/comp_new... (they even say it was $70 million, maybe that was the construction cost and there was $23 million in furnishing?)
The point is, no one but Ksand makes a big deal out of the last 1,000 square feet. Additionally are we really going to believe it actually cost $93,700,000.00? Wow
While we are at it
"And yes, when you're talking about hundreds of thousands of square feet, it really does make a difference... of over a million dollars for the building."
$780.83 on a 121,000 square foot building would be an additional $780,833.33 cents making you off by at least $219,166.67 which happens to be a far wider margin or error than $6.45 (but maybe you were just rushing like I did when I said $4 instead of $6).
But because I stated the building was $93.7 million - that is the cost of the building regardless of how many square footage -- the square footage difference (by 1,000 square feet) doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things. It is $93.7 million either way and your argument about 120,000 or 121,000 square feet is mindless nitpicking.
I think his head may explode.
Patrick_R_Gibbons said:
Before you go on to present day troubles, answer my questions on the Great Depression - stop avoiding it.how is raising taxes, stopping international trade, messing up the money supply, regulating banking, artificial wages, and corporate/state bailouts and job programs laissez-faire?
First of all I didn't say any of the above had anything to do with lassez-faire. Actually the opposite is true... Where in the world did you get an idea like that?
I think the New Deal was just what this country needed during the 1930's. We were lucky to have FDR in the White House at that time. The American voters also thought the same thing...that's one reason FDR was elected four times.
Hoover was a disaster during his term.....he was not the man that the country needed to lead us in those uncertain times...FDR was! History validates that very thing...
Hoover's "Ruggled Individualism" approach simply didn't work. That's why the unemployment numbers went from 4.4% in 1928 (when Hoover was elected...) to 23.8% by March of 1933 when Hoover was leaving office.
The only thing I'm going to say about laissez-faire during the 1920's is that it ran its course and then "crashed & burned." That's what happens with a completely unregulated economy over time... I'm sure you don't believe that.....
I'm just sayin', if I were the public face of an antitax extremist think tank, I sure would have double-checked my division and subtraction when posting to a newspaper website.
Can't Shelly shell out a few more bucks for a math tutor for these people, Pat, or is all of his money caught up in paying for that massive debt load he's accrued over the years?
gmag39 said:
"I think his head may explode"
I hope not.....the clean up would be comparable to Katrina..... Very, very expensive...
El Lobo,
You said that Hoover was a hands off president but I suggested that this wasn't true and provided details of Hoover's interventionist administration.
So how was raising taxes, stopping international trade, messing up the money supply, regulating banking, artificial wages, and corporate/state bailouts and job programs laissez-faire?
And honestly do you think "individualism" puts people out of jobs or drastically raising tariffs and shutting down international trade might have something to do with it.
Ksand, Gmag, Thebs and others,
Lets think about this rationally for a moment, lets forget who sits on what side of the fence.
Ksand contends that I cannot do simple math and thus I am wrong all the time. His proof: Greenspun Hall was not $780 a square foot (he never actually makes a counter calculation only stipulates that the math does not add up).
But as it turns out the math does add up. $93.7 million divided by 120,000 square feet (as stated in the source) does come out to $780.83 a square foot. The math was correct.
When confronted by this Ksands argument turns from math into sources. Somehow the Las Vegas Sun is so horribly incorrect on this issue. NPRI didn't check its source, he says and he goes to UNLV's website which states 121,000 square feet. However, as it turns out, all sorts of sources claim 120,000 including UNLV and the firm that constructed the building. So this counter point falls a bit flat.
For good measure Ksand asserts that being off by as much as $6.45 cents could lead to an error of millions of dollars (he over estimated given the size of this building). This claim is certainly true, if we hadn't already stipulated the price tag of the building.
A $93.7 million building does not become a $94.4 million building simply because it is $780.83 a square foot instead of $774.38 a square foot -- no it is still a $93.7 million building"the estimated square footage is what has changed. Again, the counter point falls flat.
Any rational human being can see that Ksand is stretching to reach his conclusion. My math calculation was not incorrect, and while the size of the building is in dispute (it is minor) the overall cost remains unchanged. Ksands criticism is minor at best and at worst he's simply being argumentative because he's just a dogmatic partisan not because he has anything valuable to add.
This is the dilligence of NPRI.
Patrick has stated that Greenspun Hall is 120,000 square feet, then 121,000 square feet, then back to 120,000 square feet. His source: Who knows... a Google search?
Patrick said it was $780 per square foot, then $774, now he's not sure.
Patrick, here's the really, really easy way out of such a question... tell him you don't know.
You didn't do that, you made a pretty bold assertion it was $780, then backtracked to $774, then told us that the difference between the two was four dollars, when it clearly isn't.
What worries me is what ksand99 said about the $780 figure listed in your publications. It's clear now that number isn't based on any facts, but a loose guesstimate. That brings up plenty of questions about your sources and the veracity of NPRI's work.
If this is the quality of information we get from you on such a trivial and meaningless question, I'm sure you understand why we all aren't converts of NPRI.
Thebs, let me clear things up for you it seems you missed the fine details.
1) Sources claim it is both 120,000 and 121,000...suggesting the difference really isn't that big of a deal.
2) It is $774 or $780 depending on if it is 121k or 120k.
This, of course, was already explained above.
See,
120k http://urbanaffairs.unlv.edu/news.html?U...
121k http://publicaffairs.unlv.edu/news-Media...
Both come from UNLV both cite different numbers. Using either one when we know the building's total cost was $93.7 million will lead to slightly different square foot costs.
This doesn't mean my math is wrong and it doesn't mean I make stuff up. It simply means dogmatic partisans have their ideological blinders on (ksand...maybe others) and are unwilling to be reasonable.
"Ksand contends that I cannot do simple math and thus I am wrong all the time."
Never contended you were wrong all the time. Your inability to do simple math, however, is clearly on display. The difference of 780 and 774 is not 4. You've stipulated that.
"But as it turns out the math does add up. $93.7 million divided by 120,000 square feet (as stated in the source) does come out to $780.83 a square foot. The math was correct."
The sources do not agree on the size. Rather than spending a minute or two explaining that discrepancy, you assumed 120,000 was the correct number and based your calculations on that figure, rather than 121,000. He thinks that having more than one source means his figure is closer to being correct. I beg to differ.
He used the Sun as the source of his 120,000 sq. ft figure. A tiny bit of research reveals:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2007/jan...
"The 121,000-square-foot Greenspun Hall is expected to cost $93.7 million, of which $37 million has been donated by the Greenspun family, owners of the Las Vegas Sun."
But why stop there? Here's another source:
http://publicaffairs.unlv.edu/news-Media...
And another:
http://publicaffairs.unlv.edu/news-Media...
And another:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...
So I'm wondering how that figure got into NPRI's publications. The size of Greenspun Hall is, according to Patrick, "in dispute," so why did NPRI list it as $780 when they didn't know how large the building is?
Wait a minute, Patrick.
NPRI asserted that the cost of Greenspun Hall was $780. You've clearly stated that number is questionable, at best.
Why didn't NPRI call this question out in its publication? Doesn't it reflect badly on your organization that this entire thread happened? Why should anyone have any confidence in the assertions made by your organization if you have no confidence in the numbers yourself?
"Your inability to do simple math, however, is clearly on display. The difference of 780 and 774 is not 4. You've stipulated that."
Yes I did in a hurry"but ironically you stated that the difference on such a size building would be millions of dollars when it would be far less. I said $4 in my haste instead of $6.45 you said millions instead of $219,000. Clearly my margin of error was smaller. So if I can't do math, you must really stink. Watch where you point those fingers! :P
"The sources do not agree on the size. Rather than spending a minute or two explaining that discrepancy, you assumed 120,000 was the correct number and based your calculations on that figure, rather than 121,000. He thinks that having more than one source means his figure is closer to being correct. I beg to differ."
So now a 1,000 square foot discrepancy is the big problem? Do you ever cease to create new excuses? Maybe it wasn't a big deal? But if it was the big problem wouldn't be me NOT reporting it, it would be the fact that the Sun and UNLV report both conflicting numbers. You have now just discovered this ". Congrats (I already made this point up above which was used to suggest your point falls flat).
"So I'm wondering how that figure got into NPRI's publications. The size of Greenspun Hall is, according to Patrick, "in dispute," so why did NPRI list it as $780 when they didn't know how large the building is?"
The Las Vegas Sun article that inspired the commentary was this: http://www002.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/...
It says 120,000 sq ft. The only malicious statistical intent is in your delusional mind. Clearly you are seeking to find trouble where there is none.
But Ksand, if this is the best you can do, I really look forward to your next hard hitting expose and NPRI's credibility.
I await your next critique (and my offer of sharing data sets still stands).
Patrick.....Patrick.......Patrick....
What am I going to do with you? I answered your question and you continue to go on & on...WOW!
I'm confused with your question simply because I have no idea what you're asking? I said earlier that all those things had NOTHING to do with laissez-faire and yet you came back with the same question?
Hoover's attitude of "Ruggled Individualism" simply did not fit the situation that the country found itself in....
The massive number of unemployed had nothing to do with the idea of "Ruggled Individualism." The depression was too wide spread and too massive for most people to handle with out government intervention.....pretty simple concept!
The fact that many people considered themselves "ruggled individuals" didn't keep them employed or allow them to simply ignore what was going on...
Most of the out of work people were mainly concerned about putting food on their tables & clothes on their kids backs....
What FDR did was put people to work & try to restore confidence in the economic system. He reached out to the "forgotten man" and probably prevented a revolution in the process....
"Yes I did in a hurry"but ironically you stated that the difference on such a size building would be millions of dollars when it would be far less. I said $4 in my haste instead of $6.45 you said millions instead of $219,000. Clearly my margin of error was smaller. So if I can't do math, you must really stink. Watch where you point those fingers! :P"
With all due respect, I'm not a researcher for a think tank, Patrick. The question was about you, and the organization which employs you. Specifically, it was a question of your capabilities and integrity, and a challenge which you answered, even though I criticized NPRI, not you specifically.
The NPRI publication which uses this statistic does not note any question over the size of the building, but baldly states a guess as to the cost of the building per square foot. The research put into discerning that number is fundamentally flawed, as you have also stipulated here.
Furthermore, either NPRI was unaware of the discrepancy of size, which indicates their research capabilities are weak, or was aware and chose the square foot figure which was more in-line with their critique, which is an indication of cherry-picking data.
Either of those possibilities beg a larger question: does NPRI verify ANY of the information in their publications, or is it all the product of a Google search? If I had created a web page which said it was 100 sq feet, would NPRI have used that as the basis for their statistic?
I saw this, and I'm a lowly computer programmer. What's your excuse?
...or the link to the Las Vegas Sun article which I showed you just didn't get added to the blog...
So my math was correct and your beef still lies fundamentally with the Las Vegas Sun and UNLV...
But I'm still amazed, I wasn't aware your analytical prowess includes physic powers to know the future and what other people are thinking.
El Lobo you are avoiding the question...you didn't answer it. You keep saying the government did nothing (you did it yet again) but you won't acknowledge that Hoover did all those things which you acknowledge are far more than nothing.
You say this mythical "rugged individualism" which in and of itself is not a political policy or even an economic program.
Hoover's administration increased taxes, oversaw the complete mishandling of the US money supply, increased tariffs which destroyed foreign trade, bailed out states, bailed out private corporations, bailed out farmers, and created jobs programs for unemployed people.
If that defines "rugged individualism" fine, I don't care. But it is complete BS to say that Hoover didn't do anything.
Your historical understanding of this matter is grounded in nothing more than myth. The idea that Hoover did nothing and FDR did all the right things is as fanciful as Snow White living with 7 single dwarves.
Oh and Ksand, the difference between you and me is that I don't care about your job. I don't care about your race, educational background, religion, political affiliation, or whether or not you believe humans evolved from apes or Martian dna. None of that makes you right or wrong about anything in the universe...except maybe the Martian dna part, there is currently no evidence to back you up there. But I digress!
I only care about whether or not you make good, solid, logical, factual points and counterpoints that can be validated with empirical evidence and observation - you do not, you consistently stretch your imagination to find all sorts of wrong in anyone who disagrees with your world view. That, my friend, makes you appear dogmatic.
Dogmatic? That's rich, coming from the guy who wrote, just yesterday:
"As a[sic] opposed to the groupthink which demands tax increases every year regardless of the quality of government services? As opposed to the goose stepping[sic] groupthink of people who believe government can do no wrong if only you elect the right leader?"
Pot, meet kettle, Patrick.
The point stands, the veracity of your data is, at best, flimsy. The "facts" you write in your organization's papers are, at best, questionable. It seems the only verification you have for your rhetoric is a Google search and whatever resulting unproven details that may provide.
Furthermore your behavior and the sheer amount of waffling on display in your comments shows how often your "facts" are unsure and unsubstantiated.
The credibility of a "think tank" rests on the ability and accuracy of its research. Obviously, as we've seen here, research isn't really your forte...