General Discussion

pampango

(24,692 posts)

93. "Nothing could have stopped it (the Great Depression) from happening." I disagree.

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:59 PM

Nov 2015

republican policies from 1921 to 1933 included lower taxes on the rich, cutting regulations on corporations and raising tariffs creating a historic level of income inequality (worse even than today which is saying something) and harming the middle class on which the economy depends. republicans were not innocent victims of a boom-and-bust economic cycle. The Great Depression was not inevitable. It was created by conservative republican policies.

Bush II tried to push us into a second Great Depression with many of the same policies that Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover followed. Fortunately a Democratic president was inaugurated soon enough to turn things around. If FDR had been elected in 1930 instead of 1932, perhaps the Great Depression would have been the Great Recession instead.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why the TPP Must be Opposed at All Costs [View all] polly7 Nov 2015 OP

It has to be rejected. 15 dems voted to prevent any part from being amended, no_hypocrisy Nov 2015 #1

Heretofore D-ALEC: Ron Wyden (D-ALEC),MCantwell (D-ALEC) Reps Susan Davis,S.Peters(D-ALEC) etc stuffmatters Nov 2015 #11

Add Suzanne Bonamici (My rep) and Earl Blumenour to that list ... Trajan Nov 2015 #103

Must be that their constituents see something in it that benefits them. kelliekat44 Nov 2015 #75

Many nations are rethinking it. They see it as the corporate coup that it is. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #81

Absolutely! It's the Oligarch's End Game & wet dream, rolled into one nasty package. -nt- 99th_Monkey Nov 2015 #2

So-called "subversion of democracy and sovereignty" is laughable. Same language has been in 2500+ Hoyt Nov 2015 #3

Please list those 2500+ agreements and a link to their language. GeorgeGist Nov 2015 #5

Sure thing. Why don't you do a little research on trade agreements first? Hoyt Nov 2015 #6

So we should trust the corporate psychopaths? AZ Progressive Nov 2015 #8

How about folks like Warren who tell the gulible the agreement won't be released for 4 years after Hoyt Nov 2015 #16

You are the one making the claim, why not start out with that 1959 trade agreement That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #19

If you are going to criticize the ISDS, you ought to know something about it. It was in NAFTA and Hoyt Nov 2015 #20

" Countries have been signing agreements like this" - like is a bit imprecise That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #23

Obviously, you don't work, and/or have an interest, in research. Hoyt Nov 2015 #25

Ashamed to admit your research is from Wikipedia? That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #41

Actually it was from Economist, where entry in WP probably got it. You must have WP in your cache. Hoyt Nov 2015 #45

Economist? Haw, Haw, Haw, better send 'em an email and tell them Wikipedia is plagiarizing it's work That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #60

Because it's the same thing. Jeeez, Hoyt Nov 2015 #61

What? 1959 and the year of the first ISDS in a treaty, the link to Wikipedia? ISDS and BIT? Jeepers That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #66

ISDS has been in trade agreements since 1959. It's really that simple. Hoyt Nov 2015 #72

It really isn't, because your still talking about bilateral investment treaties NOT ISDS That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #73

Just for the heck of it, let's say the first one was 1970. ISDD has still been around Hoyt Nov 2015 #86

If congress had approved the ITO proposed by FDR, an "ISDS" would have started long before it did. pampango Nov 2015 #87

Nope, because it's ISDS professor, investor-state dispute settlements That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #89

Same thing, you sound like a gun fancier arguing about whether it's a clip or magazine. Hoyt Nov 2015 #90

Guns? Sigh, you had a chance to educate us with your allegedly superior knowledge... That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #99

He just makes up stuff without a single shred of evidence. Rex Nov 2015 #27

And you think this is a good thing??? polly7 Nov 2015 #29

Yet, Canada and Mexico begged to be part of TPP. Hoyt Nov 2015 #31

Begged!!! polly7 Nov 2015 #32

Yep. They were not originally part of TPP. Hoyt Nov 2015 #34

Oh, read too fast. I thought you were still yammering on about NAFTA. polly7 Nov 2015 #35

Harper might, but I don't beleive leaders in all150+ countries that have signed these things would. Hoyt Nov 2015 #39

You can bet that he'd be helping Transcanada sue us under ISDS for shutting down Keystone... cascadiance Nov 2015 #84

Yes, it's scary all around, isn't it? polly7 Nov 2015 #85

Excellent compilations, polly7. k&r, nt appal_jack Nov 2015 #88

Thank you appal_jack. polly7 Nov 2015 #105

What a laugh. Joe Turner Nov 2015 #36

And, as Bernie says, "Enough is enough." JDPriestly Nov 2015 #21

Without trade agreements, we probably couldn't afford a computer to debate the issues. Hoyt Nov 2015 #24

America became the industrial superpower of the world Joe Turner Nov 2015 #28

But we are saturated now, need resources from others, compete in a global economy, etc. Those good Hoyt Nov 2015 #30

If the good old days are gone Joe Turner Nov 2015 #38

Like Krugman has said, people blame NAFTA (trade agreements) for things caused by other factors. Hoyt Nov 2015 #40

What 'things'? polly7 Nov 2015 #48

Again, NAFTA, TTP have little to do with trade Joe Turner Nov 2015 #59

They do with respect to trade in the 21st century, maybe not the era you are stuck in. Hoyt Nov 2015 #62

Given the results of 21st century trade Joe Turner Nov 2015 #63

Yeah, lets go back to 1930s. Hoyt Nov 2015 #64

You mean the decade where out of control stock market Joe Turner Nov 2015 #65

No, I'm talking about the period where there were no jobs because there was no investment in this Hoyt Nov 2015 #71

Mr. Hoyt you are all over the board Joe Turner Nov 2015 #91

The TPP doesn't get around regulation. I may be funny, but you are obtuse. Hoyt Nov 2015 #92

Getting around a nation's regulations is the central purpose of TPP Joe Turner Nov 2015 #94

No direct stake, but I think it is important for our and the world's future. Hoyt Nov 2015 #96

Corporations ruling world governments is a bleak future Joe Turner Nov 2015 #97

Corporations won't be ruling the world. Heck, any government can boot them out at any time. Hoyt Nov 2015 #98

Sure, let's just forget those hundreds of billions of dollars that corporations Joe Turner Nov 2015 #100

I figured that, most folks grousing work for those corporations. Hoyt Nov 2015 #101

It pays well and certainly beats shilling for a living Joe Turner Nov 2015 #102

"Nothing could have stopped it (the Great Depression) from happening." I disagree. pampango Nov 2015 #93

Sure, trees grow to the sky Joe Turner Nov 2015 #95

Recessions are part of the business cycle. Depressions are not. pampango Nov 2015 #104

I don't lije corporations either, but without them most of us would b begging for a cup full of mush Hoyt Nov 2015 #33

Heck, you could be making your own computers and employing hundreds of thousands/millions. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #44

At 4 times the cost of what we get them now. I have no interest in employing anyone, Hoyt Nov 2015 #47

Completely disregarding the horrific working conditions of those making them for you polly7 Nov 2015 #49

He doesn't care, just doesn't have the conviction to admit it to you. Rex Nov 2015 #51

I know he doesn't care. He said the same things yesterday when I presented him with polly7 Nov 2015 #56

True. Rex Nov 2015 #57

Very. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #58

And the TPP will do something about that. Probably not enough, but far better than doing nothing Hoyt Nov 2015 #52

NO, it won't. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #54

Yes it will. Read the thing. Hoyt Nov 2015 #55

Here's what people doing VERY thorough reading are finding BelgianMadCow Nov 2015 #69

Notwithstanding Naked Capitalism's vague criticism, 150+ countries have signed similar ISDS Hoyt Nov 2015 #70

Thank you. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #76

"Same language has been in 2500+ trade agreements since 1959." Why then, do we need another? cherokeeprogressive Nov 2015 #67

That's odd, isn't it? polly7 Nov 2015 #74

I believe you are wasting your time trying to convince folks who have been brainwashed about this kelliekat44 Nov 2015 #77

You should probably read it, and some of the replies in this thread polly7 Nov 2015 #79

+1000 smirkymonkey Nov 2015 #4

As I just finished posting on myTrudeau cabinet thread Monk06 Nov 2015 #7

Thanks for all this, Monk06. I agree with you completely. nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #43

K & R AzDar Nov 2015 #9

Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Nov 2015 #10

D's that voted for TPP Omaha Steve Nov 2015 #12

Shame the President, too. Octafish Nov 2015 #15

The only presidential candidate who can be trusted to deal with the TPP in the interests of the JDPriestly Nov 2015 #13

Welfare for Wall Street Octafish Nov 2015 #14

K/R and thank you, Polly Jack Rabbit Nov 2015 #17

Thanks. Clear explanation. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #22

None of that has ever happened to the USA in the 50 or so agreements with similar provisions. Hoyt Nov 2015 #26

Where did you get that hypothetical scenario? Jack Rabbit Nov 2015 #37

No they aren't, haven't been in 2500+ similar agreement worldwide since 1959. Hoyt Nov 2015 #42

Thank you for explaining this part, Jack Rabbit. I'm having trouble with a lot of it ... polly7 Nov 2015 #46

I can't get past... Kip Humphrey Nov 2015 #18

Workers are going to be thrown into slave labor, if not already there yet. Rex Nov 2015 #50

Legalese Jack Rabbit Nov 2015 #53

Talk about mealy-mouthed "commitments"... Art_from_Ark Nov 2015 #68

K/R marmar Nov 2015 #78

It's so weird that the same people who USED to say 'wait and see what's in it' are now Marr Nov 2015 #80

I know, right. That's almost shocking! nt. polly7 Nov 2015 #82

Who could have known the same who profit from it, endorse it? raouldukelives Nov 2015 #83

Great thread Polly7 !! (eom) CanSocDem Nov 2015 #106

Thanks, CanSocDem, polly7 Nov 2015 #107