If you studied this period of time as I also have, you’ll know why the US was in recession in the first place and why it entered into economic difficulties later on as the New Deal policies steadily got dismantled.I’ve studied that period of history quite well and that’s an oversimplification.
There was no prosperity in the USA until the WW2 and the war economy was in full flow. The USA was in recession until WW2 broke out and unemployment peaked in 1938 at around 19% and 39% of Americans polled in 1939 felt the administration was delaying recovery. The New Deal achieved a lot but it didn’t get the USA out of recession and historians remain split on its successes and the historiographical consensus is that the WW2 kickstarted the USA.
The war economy post-WW2 was run until up until the 1970s.
Has anyone seen Sunak today? Has he gone into hiding? Or any other Tories for that matter other than the morning rounds before the letter became public knowledge. Not seen any coverage of them anywhere regarding anything.
Too much of a coward to stand in his current Durham seat? the fanny
We weren’t talking about the 1920s boom and bust, were we?If you studied this period of time as I also have, you’ll know why the US was in recession in the first place and why it entered into economic difficulties later on as the New Deal policies steadily got dismantled.
Generally speaking trickle down, deregulated economics is to thank for the market crashes the West has had since 1929.
I thought the main reason we can’t do 50s style intervention wa the remove of capital controls.
I genuinely think Reform could win some seats in the Midlands and the Red Wall.This is bad for them
It’s just mindlessly parroting nonsense.I'm sure the note was a serious statement. How can a sovereign currency issuer run out of money? Please explain to me mr high-minded?
Voter distribution does not correlate with voting intention. Something the 2nd Ref chaps at Labour should have paid attention to in 2019….I genuinely think Reform could win some seats in the Midlands and the Red Wall.
It is interesting that the Lib Dems are supposedly on course to win 7% of the vote or so and somehow win ~43 seats.
Voter distribution does not correlate with voting intention. Something the 2nd Ref chaps at Labour should have paid attention to in 2019….
The irony of this…..the first step to fixing your problems is admitting you have them.
The irony of this…..
Well worth watching.
Just because he thinks you’re stupid enough to buy it doesn’t mean you have to indulge him.
We need more honesty and transparency from both leaders. It would be nice if Starmer didn’t keep doing u-turns on just about every one of his policies and if Sunak would give us the evidence that the proposed tax cuts are affordable.
The New Deal was a response to that boom and bust cycle. Safe to say I disagree with large swathes of your political and economic views-in that era the US had no real welfare state to speak of and FDR helped to create it.We weren’t talking about the 1920s boom and bust, were we?
You said the New Deal created the prosperity of the USA which is simply not true - there was a massive recession in the middle of his tenure and frankly, had war broke out in 1941 rather than 1939, the New Deal experiment could’ve been buried. As it happened, 1939 is when war broke out and the USA was propping up democracy (and the USSR from 1941/42) with its war production and profited massively. I admire FDR and is a candidate to be one of the most successful presidents ever. I take issue because you specifically used this example to justify the claim and you left out the fact there was a massive recession named the ‘Roovesevelt Recession’ one year after he won a second term.
Keynesian economics has its place, of course. Even Keynes himself argued for deficit spending and tax cuts during a recession only. The UK and US practiced Keynesian economics until the 1970s until Thatcher and Reagan came along because the economies experienced both high inflation and economic stagnation - hence the phrases ‘stagflation’.
In that era, developed economies did not have an enlarged welfare state and an aging population - the contexts are very different.
Thing is I think it’s the Tories who are abusing you. They’re the ones who think you and everyone else for that matter are stupid enough to buy it. None of us have to indulge them in their assumptions.No need to resort to personal abuse just because you disagree with me old chap
I’m certainly not stupid but I’m too modest to quote my academic achievements
Please also note that I have made criticisms of both Starmer and Sunak of which this is but one example:
Just caught Sky News coverage of the Tory dressed up Tax dossier but the also compared it to a Labour dressed up tax dossier on the Tories and it makes Labour look a bargain at £2K per household over the course of the next parliament. The tories have predictable come out with another even more dressed up dossier in response which is just beyond ridiculous.
It's the sort of shithousery they used to be great at. A simple if untrue message, '2k tax rise per household under Labour', that they'd repeat ad nauseum until half the country believed it.
Now they can't even get that right, they're in complete disarray.
I'll be amazed if they don't get Johnson back.
The New Deal was a response to that boom and bust cycle. Safe to say I disagree with large swathes of your political and economic views-in that era the US had no real welfare state to speak of and FDR helped to create it.
Am I to take away that he shouldn’t have?
This one seems to be being fought around a bunch of complete phalluses.I love an election campaign fought around a complete fallacy, who'd have seen this coming
I hate to break this to you...As I said, it would be an attempt to rig the vote. Having a single party permanently in power with no chance of an effective opposition would be disastrous. Could even be a precursor to an eventual one party state with all the risks that would entail.
I hate to break this to you...
Tories have been in power for 32 of the last 45 years. Methods of voting which would be good for those likely to vote for them have been brought in, while those less likely to vote for them have it much harder through needing ID for a virtually non-existent voter fraud problem.
I'm not sure whether voting for 16yo is great, but I don' think it'd be disastrous either. If you argue they're not engaged or have enough experience, neither do a lot of people of voting age. Do you think the average person knows enough about economics to make an informed decision? Do any of us have the information or time to understand all of the issues we vote on? But we do it anyway.
Why should someone of 17 be banned from voting but someone who is 18 with learning difficulties or someone in their 80's with early dementia be allowed to?
I think to engage youngsters it would be interesting to get secondary schools around the nation to distill the main policy/manifesto points and hold a general election on the same day and see the results. There are 'who should I vote for' websites which do pretty much that anyway. Although at this time of year I think 16yo would be more concerned with their G.C.S.E's than wading through a lot of policies for a vote that won't actually mean anything.
Word of the day!!Actually agree that it’s tipping the balance back a bit in the gerontocracy we have at the moment.
Think he's been rumbled myself but well see!What is it that 1 in 5 see in Farage?
An arrogant liar born with a silver spoon in his mouth and who gives a shit about nothing and no one
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?