Sensible Labour

[minestrone]

That's your opinion. Others disagree.

Well the figures are there. FDR was a failure in getting people to work by hiring people.

For every person he hired someone in the private sector lost their job. That is what happens when you take taxes to pay for jobs.

[elsergiovolador]

The ultimate motivator to get someone to work is hunger and knowledge that the taxman won't take most of the income.

[Old Greg]

You picked out the years 1934 and 1938 for a President in office from 1933 to 1945. Here is the full picture. FDR's policy of arming the UK was a real winner for US jobs.

[Old Greg]

The ultimate motivator to get someone to work is hunger and knowledge that the taxman won't take most of the income.

Would you rather earn £200 per week and pay no tax, or £5,000 per week and pay 55% tax? Hypothetically of course.

[minestrone]

You picked out the years 1934 and 1938 for a President in office from 1933 to 1945. Here is the full picture. FDR's policy of arming the UK was a real winner for US jobs.

He started the new deal in 34 you roaster.

HE was convinced about 1940 to stop needless regulation in manufacturing and labour and allow the private companies to take over planning.

FDR then went onto lock up every Japanese person for years, somehow he is remembered as a saint.

Your knowledge of this subject I suspect comes from a couple of Woodie Guthrie albums and a leaflet you read in the University union.

[PCTNN]

Graphs shown by Old Greg = 1
Graphs shown by minestrone = 0

Old Greg wins the argument

[xoggoth]

Obviously there have to be limits, governments should not prop up low-performing companies at the taxpayers' expense unless there is real prospect of improvement. However, it makes no sense to save a few million on a contract and risk losing a reasonably effective, tax paying, Brit-employing company that is worth a lot more to our economy.

[minestrone]

Graphs shown by Old Greg = 1
Graphs shown by minestrone = 0

Old Greg wins the argument

Money supply....




FDR did not understand it, his idea was that giving everyone a shovel made everything OK, like all socialists do.

We now know that printing money, and lots of it, gets you out the grubber. FDR kept the nation needlessly in poverty due to his poor grasp of economics.

[Old Greg]

He started the new deal in 34 you roaster.

HE was convinced about 1940 to stop needless regulation in manufacturing and labour and allow the private companies to take over planning.

FDR then went onto lock up every Japanese person for years, somehow he is remembered as a saint.

Your knowledge of this subject I suspect comes from a couple of Woodie Guthrie albums and a leaflet you read in the University union.

Funny isn't it how you cherry picked the 1934 date and the 1938 date, and then attempted to draw conclusion about FDR and unemployment. Then I call you out with a graph, you claim that the New Deal started in 1934 (fact - it was 1933 "you roaster") and then spew out a load of stuff about Japanese internment, sainthood and Woodie Guthrie.

Gotta get it back, Minny, gotta get it back.

[SueEllen]

Obviously there have to be limits, governments should not prop up low-performing companies at the taxpayers' expense unless there is real prospect of improvement. However, it makes no sense to save a few million on a contract and risk losing a reasonably effective, tax paying, Brit-employing company that is worth a lot more to our economy.

Stop being sensible...