Economic crisis have an effect in the wages too. Wages drop during recessions, and they only rise up after the unemployement rate falls back. It's an important economic rule... Maybe the one about supply and demand?

Then of course the wages were still lower then before even after a few years of new deal.


About it's constitutionality or not, I can't really argue about it. Enlight me in this subject with your point of view please. I'll then read more about it so I can form my opinion in the subject.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
First, definitely a right-wing source, self-correcting forces is something that Keynes claimed doesn't exist, and Mainstream liberal economists assert only begin to impact about 10-25 years down the road. Second, this economist is arguing that consumer purchasing power doesn't matter in regards to getting an economy out of a slump, and in fact seems to be arguing that all the numbers are relatively the same, so purchasing power hasn't changed, in which Case, we have to take FDR over Hoover, as FDR actually convinced people to spend.

A marriage is a relationship recognized by ritual or law. This is nearly universal across the world, not attached to any particular religion. Don't see why a gay or lesbian relationship is not applicable here.

A marriage is very much attached to a faith. A civil union is not. I think that the clergies should have the power to deny marriages they see unfit - frankly, (and as an atheist, I say this), I don't think atheists should be allowed to marry as well. They can make civil unions if they want, too.

I'm all pro-choice. I think a woman avoid as possible to get pregnant and then get an abortion, which is a sad thing, but still preferable to the opposite, when you are forced to raise kids. Those children will often be more succeptive to criminality, drugs abuse and dropouts in school, and their parents will have kids they cannot raise.

So do you want something like Finland, where abortions are illegal unless social-economic factors get in the way?

I'm totally against the use of religion in the public sphere. I believe religion should be a personal/group thing, you shouldn't need to expose it in the public, as it may be offensive to other people.

A different idea is not offensive. It is if you say "atheism is only for stupid folk", though - groundlessly insulting others' faiths (which is not happening, Americanly governmentally, anyway).

I do however oppose the disappearance of religious signs in monuments, the money or other minor places, as they are a traditional and historic thing, and that it's non-sense to want to destroy everything of our past in the name of secularization.

This question on the test, I put to phase them out, but I put at least importance - who cares?

Christian Social Democrat...like Angela Merkel. I mean that's my best guess...you're hard to pin down on the ideological spectrum :)

I classify him as a socialist or a national socialist (not as an insult, just valid politic belief).

socialism is very much in line with the spirit of Christianity and I don't see why socialism and social conservatism can't mesh together in many areas.

I really don't get why folk think that faith and economic direction can be incompatible - all major faiths don't care about your economic direction. It just happens that there is a corelation between Christians and conservatism since conserves want to keep the past and the way things were - which was conservative (and also, since they support the government, they'll believe the government more, and they'll want to kill a Bolshevik.).

Umm, you do realize FDR quite literally followed Keynesian policies, and that basically the Great Depression worldwide was more or less stopped by Rearmament, which induced gov't spending, which is Keynesian right?

Ha, worldwide? Not at all, a new depression began in the 1940s. Anyhow, there's no room for in-between ground here, you either got to regulate it loads or not. +Roosevelt did many bad things beside that - paying farmers to plant less, trying to eliminate competitive spirits. You either keep it free market if times are good or ok, or an efficient market (like in West Germany, the 10 years after the war) if times are bad.

About the new deal, I'll just post two graphics:

I don't think you want to bring up not working. Democratic socialism has a record of growing the amount of folk not working, since they don't have to, and it's easy not to. This is part of the grounds why the Nordic countries have the best living settings in the world - it's easy even if you're poor.

I won't even get into the New Deal's unconstitutiothnality.

I think Americans worship "the constitution" too much. It's obviously not perfect, and not up to date to today's standards, being written in 1775. There's something like 30 or so rightings or, as officially called "amendments" which change the bad, or outdated bits.

For example, freedom to have arms. Back in 1775, an arm was at most a single shot rifle. Now they're grenades, rocket launchers, sonic beams, and who knows whatever makings from hell. Did the writers have this in mind in 1775? The Maxim machinegun wasn't even invented until the 1880s, and it was a turning point in warfare - now instead of firing a shot every 4 seconds (or 50 seconds, back then), you can fire 10 shots every second. "Now I can solve 850 problems each minute." That kind of quick and fast killing was not accounted for, so why do you trust the constitution so much (there's bound to be other things, too)?

Edited 3/11/2016 03:58:52

Second, this economist is arguing that consumer purchasing power doesn't matter in regards to getting an economy out of a slump, and in fact seems to be arguing that all the numbers are relatively the same, so purchasing power hasn't changed, in which Case, we have to take FDR over Hoover, as FDR actually convinced people to spend.

No he's arguing that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) basically encouraged collusion, weakened antitrust laws, increased wages beyond economic sustainability, and decreased market competition which made the recovery sluggish.

Under the NIRA, businesses could avoid antitrust lawsuits if they entered collective bargaining agreements that inherently increased wages for workers. Without the threat of antitrust cases being levied against these companies they could increase the price for wages and goods. And in fact, the number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year in the 1920s to 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938. They artificially inflated prices and wages. Capitalism and the market only works when business competition is strong, but the result of the NIRA which was eventually ruled unconstitutional, effectively promoted collusion.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

That kind of quick and fast killing was not accounted for, so why do you trust the constitution so much (there's bound to be other things, too)?

If we can't even follow the simple rules put on a piece of paper how are we going to run a democracy with 300 million people? A nation that easily and quickly and seamlessly and without concern replaces one set of rules and ideas and values with another is not being pragmatic but revolutionary. We don't need revolution and we shouldn't trust the result of constitutional revolution. The Constitution is law and if we become so lax as to disregard its contents we fall victim to disregarding the rule of law in our country.

About it's constitutionality or not, I can't really argue about it. Enlight me in this subject with your point of view please. I'll then read more about it so I can form my opinion in the subject.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/gov_perm_emer.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/?no-ist

https://mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/separation-powers/

^This is only a start. I would read into the TVA, Social Security, and FDR's agricultural programs. Historical analysis suggests that FDR blackmailed and bullied the Supreme Court into becoming more liberal to allow for his later policies to be passed.

Edited 3/11/2016 04:14:53

So do you want something like Finland, where abortions are illegal unless social-economic factors get in the way?

No, I never said that. I think women should always have the choice to get an abortion or not regardless of social-economic factors.

Edited 3/11/2016 04:12:53

I think Americans worship "the constitution" too much. It's obviously not perfect, and not up to date to today's standards, being written in 1775. There's something like 30 or so rightings or, as officially called "amendments" which change the bad, or outdated bits.

For example, freedom to have arms. Back in 1775, an arm was at most a single shot rifle. Now they're grenades, rocket launchers, sonic beams, and who knows whatever makings from hell. Did the writers have this in mind in 1775? The Maxim machinegun wasn't even invented until the 1880s, and it was a turning point in warfare - now instead of firing a shot every 4 seconds (or 50 seconds, back then), you can fire 10 shots every second. "Now I can solve 850 problems each minute." That kind of quick and fast killing was not accounted for, so why do you trust the constitution so much (there's bound to be other things, too)?

If the government gets extremely good killing weapons to use on civilians why don't civilians get some weapons too?

And the radio is comparable to the Maxim. Now you can spread seditious ideas to tens of thousands at a time. It should not be legal for civilian use, too dangerous. Though the government can of course have radio stations, to spread good wholesome messages to the people.

No, I never said that. I think women should always have the choice to get an abortion or not regardless of social-economic factors.

Ok, I agree with you, but then you should justify always having the choice to get an abortion, not just under social-economic factors.

If the government gets extremely good killing weapons to use on civilians why don't civilians get some weapons too?

And the radio is comparable to the Maxim. Now you can spread seditious ideas to tens of thousands at a time. It should not be legal for civilian use, too dangerous. Though the government can of course have radio stations, to spread good wholesome messages to the people.

My point was, whether it ended up to be good or bad, the builders of the constitution had no idea of this - and can't really be expected to (but yet here is someone saying something is bad since it is "unconstitutional".).

Of course they knew arms technology would get better, some were metal smiths and such. It's not like we don't think arms technology will get better, and many make predictions.

Of course they knew arms technology would get better, some were metal smiths and such. It's not like we don't think arms technology will get better, and many make predictions.

They knew it would get better, but you must recall - the biggest development in European guns from 1300s to 1700s is probably the development of proto-revolvers, that were rarely used. How would they know that guns and weapons would ever get to be anywhere that powerful?

And we forecast things, too - equipped with powers of statistic inference that were not disponsible in the 1700s. It was forecast in the 1970s or so that world petrol supply would run out, or rather, not be economically worth it to buy petrol, in about 2000. It didn't. Most business "experts" in the 1970s said that the home computer would never catch on - look how wrong they were.

Edited 3/11/2016 04:31:59

They knew about Volley guns and that they were being refined. It's not that much of a jump to assume that one day the volley gun would be made to fire more rounds faster(and it was made to, they were basically proto-Miniguns).

Also I meant that if we forecast things, why would they?

And even volley guns were not widespread then. And maybe it's not too much a jump to go from big volley guns at a time where semiautomatic revolver technology was not developed to smaller and much faster guns that don't even use revolving technology, but it's definitely a jump to go from big volley artillery to handheld, small (to the point of hiding it in a jacket) automatic guns that can fire very fast, like a G18 or some SMGs; or to handheld (but not so hideable) rifles that although slower, can kill from kilometres away. And what about suppressors? They had hardly a clue that was coming.

Also I meant that if we forecast things, why would they?

I don't get what you mean, but what I was trying to mean is that even modern forecasts are often dubious, even though we are much better equipped to forecast - why should one hail to the builders' forecasts?

Edited 3/11/2016 04:44:17

@MGSB, you do realize going up against the US military is completely futile right?
They literally have tanks, and sadly those aren't commercially purchasable. Also, gun controls are generally targeted towards taking guns away from those who shouldn't have them(Aka psychos, criminals, etc), and limiting their lethality(You don't need a mini-gun to kill a criminal).

They literally have tanks, and sadly those aren't commercially purchasable. Also, gun controls are generally targeted towards taking guns away from those who shouldn't have them(Aka psychos, criminals, etc), and limiting their lethality(You don't need a mini-gun to kill a criminal).

I think he was advocating for putting all those things on the civilian market, though.

Well, good luck going up against the strongest military in the world(Note: I Said military, not army there's a difference).

The Taliban defeated the US , they didn't have the fanciest things. Neither did the Vietmanese. And if the non-governments have more people, we can also compare it to China and the US in 1951(and here the US's factories , farms and roads are much more vulnerable).

The Taliban defeated the US , they didn't have the fanciest things. Neither did the Vietmanese. And if the non-governments have more people, we can also compare it to China and the US in 1951(and here the US's factories , farms and roads are much more vulnerable).
and what makes you believe a majority of people in the US are going to revolt?
Cause I'll just move to Canada if this presidential election goes too sour, as well as any leftist that believes the US is a lost cause, which just leaves the right as possible rebels, and nationalists sure as h*ll won't revolt.

Your revolutionaries are: Separatists/ State's rightists, that's a very small percentage of the US population today, and pretty much since Lincoln.

and what makes you believe a majority of people in the US are going to revolt?
Cause I'll just move to Canada if this presidential election goes too sour, as well as any leftist that believes the US is a lost cause, which just leaves the right as possible rebels, and nationalists sure as h*ll won't revolt.

Your revolutionaries are: Separatists/ State's rightists, that's a very small percentage of the US population today, and pretty much since Lincoln.

There was never a majority for the Taliban, far from it. And even if there was, the ratio would still be very small contrasted to America.

So one percent plus a raising percentage (the government will just make more enemies)? About 3 million insurgents across various terrains and have access to a near limitless amount of weapons and ammunition.

Hmmm, actually I'd say the US defeated both the talibans and the vietnamese in the military field, what made the wars to be lost was the public opinion, that was against both of them after thousands of casualties as well as the atrocities the US military did in these countries.

They could have even won these wars if they did anything to win regardless of all human rights whatsoever. I don't say they did respect those rights, but public opinion wouldn't have supported that the US won the wars by all means...