Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

America's Lost Decade: 2000-2009

Recs

14

January 07, 2010 – Comments (4)

While we were busy on messianic crusades into foreign lands in search of the boogeyman, manufacturing climate change paranoia with faulty data, and worshipping a savior who somehow lifted us up from a crash that he failed to see coming, this happened:

Here's hoping your 2010 doesn't depend on the statistical forecasts of Washington technocrats.

David in Qatar

4 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 08, 2010 at 12:53 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

So the war machine helped pump the 40s (and to a lesser extent the 50s, 60s, and 70s) and they were big decades for GDP and household net worth.

The 80s and 90s without major wars had lesser overall growth rates but very similar strong outcomes.

What in your opinion has so depressed the 00s? My expectation (based on your intro statement above) is that you would say the combination of the growth in government (size and more warmongering) and the stretching of the dollar to the point of elasticity that even Gumby could not withstand.

What is your take?

Known as nzsvz9 who dislike Poney-Pal Pokey

Report this comment
#2) On January 08, 2010 at 9:08 PM, whereaminow (61.23) wrote:

nzsvz9,

Exactly my thoughts.  I do think the war has had a major effect though, and I say this because it has lasted twice as long as WWII, and has been far more expensive. I don't know the exact amount off hand, but the defense department budget must have been around $2-3 trillion or so for the decade.  (It was $538 billion for FY 2010 alone.)

Side note: remember when that guy in Bush's office was fired for saying the war might cost $50 billion?

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#3) On January 11, 2010 at 10:22 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

It seems Bush fired Lawrence Lindsey as his economics advisor in early December 2002 for claiming that the Iraq War would cost between $100 and $200 billion.

From the research I've done online, it would seem that WWII cost around $288 Billion which would be over $3 Trillion in today's inflated dollars.

That's a lot of money to pull from the economy in any time period - but this time we're not pounding our competitors into the stone age, we're pounding folks in the stone age right back to the stone age -- while we ignore our competition in Beijing and Bangalore.

Known as part-time psychohistorian nzsvz9

Report this comment
#4) On January 13, 2010 at 9:57 PM, DaretothREdux (49.46) wrote:

I don't buy the job growth numbers in the forties. WWII was nothing more than a total misallocation or resources, including a devastation of the labor force. War never brings about an economic net gain. I also believe many of the gov't numbers from that time are totally fudged.

For example if I make bread and the gov't during wartime decides that each loaf is woth $10 (and it's true market value is $5) then of course we will not only turn a profit but will employ more people to make bread. This does not mean that the employment nor the increased bread production is anything but an economic net loss as the resources should very likely be used elsewhere.

nzsvz9,

I had completely forgotten about Lawrence Lindsey. That's hilarious.

Dare

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement