Why Tax Rate Reductions Are More Stimulative Than Rebates: Lessons from 2001 and 2003

[shagdrum]

That is what the stimulus plan is suppose to do. Create jobs which in turn creates consumers.

Again, you are talking theory which history has shown is wrong. Specifically, you are talking the multiplier effect which has been shown to be nonexistant or even negative. I have pointed this out is articles and quotes from articles numerous times in the thread.

You are basing your ‘turn around’ strategy on the false ideal that we are a producing nation. We are not. We haven’t been for many years. What you state may have worked in the past, but, in the past we produced goods for ourselves and the world. Now, the world produces goods for us.

You are assuming only the production of tangible, physical goods. We are a nation that produces, but the production is less based on tangible and physical goods now then it used to be.

All economies (in any real sense) are driven by production, not consumption. History has shown this to be true. Weather you realize it or not, you are effectively equivocating here by narrowing the definition of production to only mean the production of tangible, physical assets. Production is so much more then that, and we are moving into those other areas.

Should we turn that scenario around – maybe. But, that turn-around couldn’t happen for many, many years. Maybe decades.

If we abolish the corporate and capital gains taxes, it would turn around very quickly.

People have been taking their business overseas because it is less expensive then staying in America. High benefits and labor costs (thank you unions and government) as well as high taxes are why it costs so much. You take away those taxes and you would see businesses flock to America very quickly.

 

[Calabrio]

And, unsurprisingly enough, our local hospitals (here in Central PA) are all recording double-digit decreases (vs prior year numbers) in child births for the past two months, plus reduced attendance at birthing classes and similar pregnancy-assistance programs which would indicate the trend of fewer babies will continue. The signs are there, just gotta look. And have friends in the hospital billing industry

Which could mean any number of things. If the information is true, and not merely anecdotal, that could point to any number of causes- the least likely of them being that over a year ago, a significant segment of the population of birthing age decided that they were going to postpone having a child, anticipated economic troubles, and were going to wait until a recovery of some kind, in an unknown number of years. That's preposterous.

If the numbers in September 2009 are lower than most other Septembers, that would be possible theory. But not now. In order to publish, analyze, birth, gestate, conceive, and decide- we're talking about sometime in 2007 for this decision.

If birthrates are down RIGHT NOW, it could be because people are moving from that area. The population is getting older. Any number of scenarios rather than a conscious decision based on economic foreshadowing 18 months ago.

This is off topic, but don't defend her flights of fancy,

 

[luxuryrules]

Which could mean any number of things. If the information is true, and not merely anecdotal, that could point to any number of causes- the least likely of them being that over a year ago, a significant segment of the population of birthing age decided that they were going to postpone having a child, anticipated economic troubles, and were going to wait until a recovery of some kind, in an unknown number of years. That's preposterous.

Not necessarily. One of my married friends is withholding having a child for that exact reason. I know, that's anecdotal, but I can at least tell you for sure that it isn't necessarily preposterous because it has happened at least once and probably more than that.
Does it not make sense? If your wife were about to be laid off, or your company were laying people off, would you want to bring a child into the world? The rational part of me says that I wouldn't want to be responsible for another living being until I was relatively certain I was stable enough to take care of it, and I don't think 'certain' and 'stable' are two terms that apply to most peoples' employment situations over the past year or so.

If the numbers in September 2009 are lower than most other Septembers, that would be possible theory.

They are, in fact, lower than most Septembers. As far back as 2001, in fact.

If birthrates are down RIGHT NOW, it could be because people are moving from that area. The population is getting older. Any number of scenarios rather than a conscious decision based on economic foreshadowing 18 months ago.

Those are all possibilities, and unfortunately for us, we'll never know the cause behind the data, just the data itself.

I'm just saying it may not be so preposterous. The idea is sound, and the data is there to support it. Maybe the idea and data are not linked cause and effect, but the connection is certainly plausible.

This is off topic, but don't defend her flights of fancy,

Very mature of you. I find it rather fun to take note that there are two people here that are openly insulting and belittling other members, now I have been cursed at, and yet it is the 'liberals' who are the people who can't hold up a debate.

For the purposes of civilty, keep labels, insults, and cursing out of the discussion and stick to the facts. For a discussion of this intensity, all sides have done quite well, but I keep seeing one side taking pot shots at the other, that aren't necessary and contribute absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

EDIT: Hey, cool, I see the term bullc*** got changed to 'flights of fancy' hmmm......

 

[Calabrio]

I'm just saying it may not be so preposterous. The idea is sound, and the data is there to support it. Maybe the idea and data are not linked cause and effect, but the connection is certainly plausible.

I didn't disagree that the idea would eventually be plausible. Responsible families can make decisions based on their economic ability to support a larger family. But she didn't make the statement in a speculative way, it was stated with certitude. As she presented it, I don't think that statement is supportable.

You're observations, our speculations and foreshadowing aside.

Another important point to note- strong economies don't necessarily equate to high birth rates, and vice versa.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

 

[shagdrum]

For the purposes of civilty, keep labels, insults, and cursing out of the discussion and stick to the facts. For a discussion of this intensity, all sides have done quite well, but I keep seeing one side taking pot shots at the other, that aren't necessary and contribute absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

How about you apply that to both sides. I have been called (or implied to be) a racist, sexist and homophobe on a few different occasions here. The unnecessary insults started from the left on this forum in an attempt to smear and dishonestly marginalize their opponents. We those people didn't take to kindly to it, and started calling them on it. They ratcheted up the insults, rudeness and mock indignation. When called on that by their opponents (who, by this point were tired of treated in a disrespectful manner and thus stopped trying to be nice when calling the left on their underhanded and rude tactics), the left started whining. When they got no sympathy they left.

You clearly have not been hear for too long. That all happened over the course of at least a year, year and a half, (from what I can remember) maybe longer.

Certian people have demonstrated that they have no sense of decency and honesty here.

The difference between the conservative "rudeness" and "insults" and left's rudeness, is that the conservatives are being honest and accurate, the liberals are smearing and distorting to marginalize. One is justifiable and one isn't.

 

[fossten]

Very mature of you. I find it rather fun to take note that there are two people here that are openly insulting and belittling other members, now I have been cursed at, and yet it is the 'liberals' who are the people who can't hold up a debate.

For the purposes of civilty, keep labels, insults, and cursing out of the discussion and stick to the facts. For a discussion of this intensity, all sides have done quite well, but I keep seeing one side taking pot shots at the other, that aren't necessary and contribute absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

EDIT: Hey, cool, I see the term bullc*** got changed to 'flights of fancy' hmmm......

Your dignified outrage is untimely. Rather than start lecturing people about their demeanor when you have less than 200 posts, you would be better served to stick to posting your opinion for a while and learning.

There is a lot that has gone on long before you got here.

 

[foxpaws]

...you're kidding right.
You're saying that calculated birth rates (collected, calculated, and published) which are the result of conceptions 9 months prior are down because of the weak economy now?

You'll print anything so long as you like the way it sounds, won't you.

Nope, I read it in the LA Times...
Recession prompts some couples to delay having kids
Birthrates typically decline during economic downturns. Would-be parents struggle with the wisdom of waiting.

And here...demographic trends
Obama Mamas May Delay Babymaking
Despite post-election procreation obsession, the economy cools off baby fever.

KOAA News
Shaky economy means ‘bye-bye baby’ for some

It is pretty standard stuff - in times of economic hardship people look twice at increasing the size of their families..
Here is an old 1991 story about the last recession
Drop in Births Reported, And Recession Is Blamed

And, guess what Cal - this forum ain't - 'in print' - at least I do know the difference there --- I have been 'in print' lots - I am not writing here to be 'in print'.

 

[foxpaws]

No, you simply implied it.

But it is still hasn't been shown that they left out a whole industry. In fact, looking at the numbers reported at the time, what we had about farmers was clearly very scarce. I don't see any way they could have found the numbers. There was never and "farmer unemployment statistic" reported or really anything they could derive and estimate from, that I can tell.

But you still claim that Heritage left out the numbers; with no proof and evidence that contradicts your claim. You are perpetuating a falsehood; by definition, a smear.

Ah... Shag - look at the chart below, from Heritage (the one you posted earlier) - they even say that they have left out the farm numbers (look above and to the right of FDR - you can sort of follow the line of his cigarette). You can find a chart that shows the breakdown, with and without farm numbers at the Census Bureau. Scroll down a little bit to page 126 to find the chart. It lists two columns of unemployment rates, "Civilian labor force" and "Non-farm employment". Most people use the Civilian labor force, because that includes everyone.

Now do you understand... ??????? They left out those numbers, and never really state a good reason why they did. When you look at other papers by both sides, they pretty much all use the numbers from the commerce department, like Marcus posted earlier. I haven't smeared them - questioned them, and labeled it as unfair... but, I didn't smear them.

Now, off to get many margaritas - wow - things have even gotten longer and more involved... I bet I will need the whole pitcher all to myself if I am to undertake responding to even just a small portion of all of this. I'll just get it rimmed with salt...

 

[Calabrio]

Nope, I read it in

No you didn't.
You're posting to recent examples of light journalism discussing people who have only recently stated they were going to delay having more children. None of the links you found demonstrate a recent reduction in birth rates due to economic down turn.

They all talk about decisions or really, discussions, taking place today.

And, guess what Cal - this forum ain't - 'in print' - at least I do know the difference there --- I have been 'in print' lots - I am not writing here to be 'in print'.

That is true, you have professional bullcrap experience.

 

[shagdrum]

Ah... Shag - look at the chart below, from Heritage (the one you posted earlier) - they even say that they have left out the farm numbers (look above and to the right of FDR - you can sort of follow the line of his cigarette). You can find a chart that shows the breakdown, with and without farm numbers at the Census Bureau. Scroll down a little bit to page 126 to find the chart. It lists two columns of unemployment rates, "Civilian labor force" and "Non-farm employment". Most people use the Civilian labor force, because that includes everyone.

Now do you understand... ??????? They left out those numbers, and never really state a good reason why they did. When you look at other papers by both sides, they pretty much all use the numbers from the commerce department, like Marcus posted earlier. I haven't smeared them - questioned them, and labeled it as unfair... but, I didn't smear them.

Go read post #35. Then ask yourself, "did farms have reportable payrolls in the 1920's and 1930's"? "Was there any way to get unemployment numbers for farms and farm workers in the the 1920's and 1930's"? Keep in mind that unemployment wasn't even officially reported by the government until 1940.

 

[MonsterMark]

Just doing some drive-by-posting

YouTube - Stimulis: Because all economies have performance issues

 

[ford nut]

How about you apply that to both sides. I have been called (or implied to be) a racist, sexist and homophobe on a few different occasions here. The unnecessary insults started from the left on this forum in an attempt to smear and dishonestly marginalize their opponents. We those people didn't take to kindly to it, and started calling them on it. They ratcheted up the insults, rudeness and mock indignation. When called on that by their opponents (who, by this point were tired of treated in a disrespectful manner and thus stopped trying to be nice when calling the left on their underhanded and rude tactics), the left started whining. When they got no sympathy they left.

You clearly have not been hear for too long. That all happened over the course of at least a year, year and a half, (from what I can remember) maybe longer.

Certian people have demonstrated that they have no sense of decency and honesty here.

The difference between the conservative "rudeness" and "insults" and left's rudeness, is that the conservatives are being honest and accurate, the liberals are smearing and distorting to marginalize. One is justifiable and one isn't.

Would you like some cheese to go with that wine ?

 

[fossten]

Would you like some cheese to go with that wine ?

Untimely, troll. He wasn't talking to you. I'm talking to you. You really need to learn to participate in your own discussions and quit saying stupid things.

 

[shagdrum]

Would you like some cheese to go with that wine ?

Well...I talk about people with no decency or honesty (might as well throw "lack if intellectual integrety" in there while I am at it) and...look who show's up?

 

[foxpaws]

Nope. So you ignore most all of it, take one or two things andrun with it.

Well, first Shag, I will get into the 'meat' of the argument soon (no kidding that is long - it is going to take 2 margaritas just to finish reading it ) - but I have a trade show to pack...

Well, shag, I did say I would get back to it - and I have... here is a start, but to tell you the truth, I am way overwhelmed by all of that posting. Wow, impressed, but overwhelmed.

So, please excuse me if I do miss something - obviously there is so much...

This is for post #89...

As far as the 'guarantee' that you stated regarding getting out of the recession. So, you believe we can get out of the recession while we remain at almost 8% unemployment... i assumed, incorrectly I guess, that the guarantee to get out of the recession included job creation. I guess this would be the first recession that is reversed with unemployment sitting at 8%. I suppose it could happen.

As far as repealing capital gain taxes - I have asked this before (post 83)- and I need an answer before I can start answering your argument. Do you mean no taxes on long term capital gains - short term capital gains - gains on real property - gains on overseas interests. There are many, many types of capital gains. The article you have just states Repeal of capital gains taxes will produce. It doesn't state which ones. It mentions long-term investment decisions in one paragraph, and then in another one that investors makes decisions based on long term policies, and not just short term ones.

And as long as we are talking about this - I am not creating class vs class distinctions regarding paying taxes on capital gains. I make plenty on capital gains, and it would be great for me if they were repealed, but I don't think it would be fair. Mostly not fair because I am not risking all that much. Now, if those gains were treated like gains in real property - as well as losses in real property I think we might have something. I can buy a house, if it goes down when I sell it, I don't get to claim the loss. However, if I make money, recent tax laws let me keep the gain, up to 250,000 (500,000 if a couple) tax free if I have lived in the house 2 out of the last 5 years. This forces me to keep the house, use the house and take the risk if the house loses money. It might work if long term capital gains have to be kept even longer, say 3 years instead of the current 1 year restriction, and if you don't get to write off a total loss, maybe a percentage of the loss, and, you can't take the loss off against your 'real' income, but just against your capital gains (similar to gambling - you can take your losses off, but only against your winnings). So if you have a cap on the gain you can make tax free, as well as have a risk factor where you can't just write off all the loss.

Would companies come here if we repealed corporate taxes? Are our labor costs competitive? We are for Japanese auto makers, but other industries? I don't really know. There are a lot of considerations other than taxes. And do their profits get taxed here when their corporate headquarters are in a different country? Mostly I have been told if I buy a Honda, even if it has been built here in the States the profits go back to Japan... We get the jobs and in some cases the property taxes where the factories sit (but often, to lure those factories big concessions are made by local governments, such as reduced property taxes), but I don't think that Honda is making a lot of corporate income tax payments to the good old USA.

And will companies not build that better mouse trap if they don't get a reprieve from taxes. No, if as you said they are really competitive and really want to get a 'leg up' on the competition, they are going to build that better mouse trap if they see they can make money on it... I really don't see where not paying corporate income taxes is going to effect whether or not they they continue to try to succeed in the marketplace.

Could removing or cutting corporate taxes be good for the future, perhaps, long term. But, short term, something additional needs to be done, or the future could have no one buying mousetraps, because they are in soup lines.

So, about the money sitting in saving accounts. How does help move the economy if it is just sitting and no one is borrowing it? I do know how that works. If I put in my $100 in the bank, and am drawing 5% interest - the bank at the end of the year owes me $5. Now, normally the bank turns around and loans that money - at 10% interest. So, they get $10 at the end of the year. They have made $5. But, this year, no one is borrowing that money - we are all afraid to borrow because our jobs are at risk. So, the bank is still paying out interest to me, but they aren't making any money on the other side. It isn't helping the economy, is it shag?

Maybe there are other ways that money sitting in the bank, not being loaned out is helping, but I don't know what it is... I get my $5, but, am I going to take that and spend it right now, not in this climate, it stays in the bank, gathering dust and more interest.

I don't see this as a regular recession shag, it looks more like the start of a really severe recession, or a mild depression. It is beginning to look very similar to '29, '30, '31. With the huge hit in the market, the banks failing, the mortgage bubble, the snowballing job losses. Hoover sat back for quite a while and did nothing. Doing nothing isn't going to work. Cutting taxes isn't going to work fast enough (it is a 2 year cycle Shag - as I said, look at Reagan's numbers). There needs to be a 'band-aid' that will get us to the point of looking up, otherwise we could hemorrhage out, like we did in '29 - '33.

Oh, shag - if you look at my chart, japan is sitting at 30% for federal income tax - the 40.9 you state is with their other taxes added on. All countries have other taxes... We aren't the only ones.

This is silly anyway. I stated we were probably #1 among OCED countries - isn't that good enough for you?

And once again - during Reagan's term the deficit did increase...

I never said it didn't. But Reagan's tax cuts saw an increase in tax reciepts, so they helped reduce the deficit from what it could have been.

Oh, and you did say that during Reagan's term that the deficit didn't decrease...

More mischaracterization of Reagan... his tax cuts reduced the deficit.

You didn't say 'what it could have been' initially - that is speculative. If taxes had remained the same the tax roles would have been greater - that is another speculation. Hard facts - deficit increase under Reagan.

Oh, and that road worker - those are private contractors that will be handling the infrastructure jobs. Not the government. Those are 'real' employment numbers. I know how unemployment is calculated. If KMGH hires them, they show up on regular payroll accounts as a private sector job.

Well, I know that isn't everything - I still have to look at another really long post of yours aggghhhhh #99

 

[foxpaws]

Go read post #35. Then ask yourself, "did farms have reportable payrolls in the 1920's and 1930's"? "Was there any way to get unemployment numbers for farms and farm workers in the the 1920's and 1930's"? Keep in mind that unemployment wasn't even officially reported by the government until 1940.

Shag - if you look at the Census Bureau Link - which I guess it is OK to use Census Bureau numbers, because that is what Heritage uses - right? Well, if you look at page 126 you can find the chart that Heritage used. And they obviously choose the last column - the one without farm workers included. Not Civilian work force, which most people use.

Do you have the link to the Heritage article that uses that chart with the picture of FDR in it? I would like to read the whole article. I really don't understand why they presented the information the way they did.

You need to let this one go shag - one, it really has not a lot of bearing at this point and two, if you noticed I can spin a whole lot better using the numbers that Heritage uses. For example - FDR, using the non-farm workers unemployment numbers, was able to reduce unemployment from 37.6 to 21.3 in his first 8 years in office. That averages over 2 points per year - do you have any idea of how amazing that is Shag? No president has even shaved 1 point per year off unemployment numbers over their complete term in office, let alone 2 points.

 

[foxpaws]

No you didn't.
You're posting to recent examples of light journalism discussing people who have only recently stated they were going to delay having more children. None of the links you found demonstrate a recent reduction in birth rates due to economic down turn.

They all talk about decisions or really, discussions, taking place today.

That is true, you have professional bullcrap experience.

Yes I did...

They ran this on the local NBC news one night earlier this week and I caught the tail end of it - I was interested in it - I googled it and read the stories.

And, heck don't knock getting paid to sling bullcrap until you have tried it...

 

[Calabrio]

Yes I did...

They ran this on the local NBC news one night earlier this week and I caught the tail end of it - I was interested in it - I googled it and read the stories.

And, heck don't knock getting paid to sling bullcrap until you have tried it...

No, you didn't. That wasn't what you stated.
And I explained why earlier.

And I'm not knocking you're experience getting paid to sling bullcrap, merely noting it.

 

[shagdrum]

As far as the 'guarantee' that you stated regarding getting out of the recession. So, you believe we can get out of the recession while we remain at almost 8% unemployment... i assumed, incorrectly I guess, that the guarantee to get out of the recession included job creation. I guess this would be the first recession that is reversed with unemployment sitting at 8%. I suppose it could happen.

Where did I ever say anything that even remotely suggested that I thought cutting cap gains/corporate taxes would get us out of a recession without creating new jobs (and thus reducing unemployment).?

As far as repealing capital gain taxes - I have asked this before (post 83)- and I need an answer before I can start answering your argument. Do you mean no taxes on long term capital gains - short term capital gains - gains on real property - gains on overseas interests. There are many, many types of capital gains. The article you have just states Repeal of capital gains taxes will produce. It doesn't state which ones. It mentions long-term investment decisions in one paragraph, and then in another one that investors makes decisions based on long term policies, and not just short term ones.

Does it really matter? Unless you can give a reasonable explaination why these distinctions are necessary here, it seem to me that you are simply trying to cloud the argument while raising the burden of proof...

And as long as we are talking about this - I am not creating class vs class distinctions regarding paying taxes on capital gains. I make plenty on capital gains, and it would be great for me if they were repealed, but I don't think it would be fair.

Fairness in this context (as in most contexts) is completely arbitrary and has no place in this discussion. to suggest the government should at all have any hand in making things "fair" is immoral.

Would companies come here if we repealed corporate taxes?

yes

Are our labor costs competitive?

That is irrelevant to this discussion.

There are a lot of considerations other than taxes.

so what? abolishing the taxes would have definate net positive short term and long term effects for the economy.

All those other considerations only serve to muddy the waters and dishonestly shift the evidenciary burden of proof on to your opponent.

And will companies not build that better mouse trap if they don't get a reprieve from taxes.

If they have no incentive to do so, then they won't. Stimulus spending (Obama's plan) doesn't provide any incentive to them. Abolishing the corporate and/or capital gains tax will give them that incentive.

Could removing or cutting corporate taxes be good for the future, perhaps, long term. But, short term, something additional needs to be done, or the future could have no one buying mousetraps, because they are in soup lines.

Cutting corporate and/or capital gains taxes will have both a short term and long term net benefit to the economy. Due to the psychological effect it would have on businesses and the markets, there would be an imediate short term benefit. This would be sustained by the long term benefit of businesses expanding to maximize profits.

Contrast that with the stimulus spending plan...

The only benefit it may have is short term due to a brief psychological effect of the government doing something. When the long term substance of the stimulus is felt it will hurt the economy (as has been historically proven).

So, about the money sitting in saving accounts. How does help move the economy if it is just sitting and no one is borrowing it? I do know how that works. If I put in my $100 in the bank, and am drawing 5% interest - the bank at the end of the year owes me $5. Now, normally the bank turns around and loans that money - at 10% interest. So, they get $10 at the end of the year. They have made $5. But, this year, no one is borrowing that money - we are all afraid to borrow because our jobs are at risk. So, the bank is still paying out interest to me, but they aren't making any money on the other side. It isn't helping the economy, is it shag?

Yes, because as Keynes would point out, times right now are unstable, they are waiting for the government to do something. We are experiencing the bursting of the credit bubble which is more far reaching then even the housing bubble or the gas bubble. Easy credit turn society into a "buy now, pay later" mindset. Since everyone was paying for things with more money then they had (living beyond their means) prices on most everything were artificially inflated.

Now that the credit bubble has burst, the market is out of what and is correcting itself. Prices naturally would drop as the market works to find it's new equilibrium, but the government is interfering and making things worse.

In a misguided attempt to stimulate credit that are printing more money at an absurd rate (adding liquidity) and is reducing the value of money at an alarming rate. They are effectively (artificially) inflating prices to try and avoid the market correction. Thus the recession is getting worse while the necessary market correction is put off. So when the market is finally allowed to correct itself (which is inevitable) the damage it will be far greater because the recession has been allowed to go on a lot longer.

Combine that with the stimulus spending Obama is pushing which is simply trying to put off the pain of the correction and will only make it worse and longer.

Obama's plan works against private enterprise which is the wrong thing to do. In every recession , private enterprise has been the first to turn around from the "downward spiral" of the recession and pull the country out of the recession. Governments have only ever "helped" by getting out of the way of private enterprise and have only harmed when they try to pull the country out of the recession instead of private enterprise.

No government is capable of controlling or (even directly effecting in a positive way) the economy. They can only positively effect the economy through private enterprise, not by working against it (as Obama is doing).

Maybe there are other ways that money sitting in the bank, not being loaned out is helping, but I don't know what it is... I get my $5, but, am I going to take that and spend it right now, not in this climate, it stays in the bank, gathering dust and more interest.

So what makes you think that the government can turn this around. History has show that they cannot, but only the private sector can. What makes you think this would be any different?

I don't see this as a regular recession shag, it looks more like the start of a really severe recession, or a mild depression. It is beginning to look very similar to '29, '30, '31. With the huge hit in the market, the banks failing, the mortgage bubble, the snowballing job losses. Hoover sat back for quite a while and did nothing.

Even if a proactive government actually could work in turning around a recession, in the real world they work to slow to do what would need to be done (under Keynsian theory). In this case, it would have been at latest, last summer that something should have been done.

And the record shows that historically governments can only hurt things in the long run, not make things better.

Markets are always self correcting, and there is no reason to think that this recession is not going to be. Businesses are effected in basically the same way as they are in any recession; they can't make a profit (for whatever reason) and, in worse recessions, are actually contracting, thus reducing employment. What the reasons are is irrelevant, in the long term. They are always corrected over time.

The bursting of the credit bubble and the housing bubble is the market working to correct itself. The next bubble to burst will probably be the college tuition bubble. There is nothing that can by the government to stop the market correction; it needs to happen.

Doing nothing isn't going to work.

Again, why not? Markets are always self correcting, by their very nature. And they work quicker then whenever governments have tried to correct a recession. History has shown this to be the case.

Cutting taxes isn't going to work fast enough (it is a 2 year cycle Shag - as I said, look at Reagan's numbers). There needs to be a 'band-aid' that will get us to the point of looking up, otherwise we could hemorrhage out, like we did in '29 - '33.

No solution will have a substantive immediate effect. It doesn't matter who proposes it; and Obama/FDR, a Reagan, whoever. All any solution will have is an immediate (very short term) psychological benefit that will set the stage for either the sucess or the failure of whatever solution is enacted when the substance of it hits the market.

If the solution has a negative substantive effect, then the short term psychological benefit will only add a psychological draw back that will add to the negative effect of the recession. If the solution has a positive effect, then the psychological benefit from the short term effect will be sustained into the longer term substantive effect.

Stimulus spending has always had a negative effect on any recession. Tax cuts have been show to consistently have a positive effect.

Oh, and you did say that during Reagan's term that the deficit didn't decrease...

I never said anything like that. I said that they reduced the deficit. It is not speculative, either. The tax cuts increased tax revenue. If congress is deficit spending, then any increase in tax revenue is going to decrease that deficit.

It is not speculative, it is common sense.

 

[fossten]

It is not speculative, it is common sense.

Apparently it's not too common with liberals.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - if you look at the Census Bureau Link - which I guess it is OK to use Census Bureau numbers, because that is what Heritage uses - right? Well, if you look at page 126 you can find the chart that Heritage used. And they obviously choose the last column - the one without farm workers included. Not Civilian work force, which most people use.

Do you have the link to the Heritage article that uses that chart with the picture of FDR in it? I would like to read the whole article. I really don't understand why they presented the information the way they did.

Here is that original blurb.

Let me connect the dots for you here.

Here is what Heritage said:

For the record, Heritage plotted New Deal unemployment using widely accepted Census Bureau data (Page 6, Series D, column 10), the "official" numbers that were compiled at the time.

They didn't count Civilian Conservation Corps workers, prisoners or anyone else who got only "three hots and a cot" as a government employee. Neither does Heritage...

...Over the years, economists and academics working in good faith calculated "alternative series" of unemployment statistics in hopes of painting a more accurate picture. All begin with census data. The alternative numbers, generally showing somewhat lower levels of unemployment, are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.​

The link Heritage give is what to what the Census Bureau currently reports as unemplyement stats for that time. If you read the thing, you can see that it is basically the Lebergott 1967 estimates compiled with more modern estimates.

Heritage is very specific in their claim that, "Page 6, Series D, Column 10" (the "non-farm" numbers) are the numbers they used and that those specific numbers are the "official" numbers that were compiled at the time of the Great Depression.

So either Heritage is being extremely sloppy (or cocky) or working to be extremely accurate. You can say Heritage is many things, but sloppy is not one of them.

Still, just because they are not typically sloppy doesn't mean that they didn't slip up in this case. So you would need to confirm what they say.

If you read the notes in the Census Bureau data link, you would see that most of the numbers on that chart are estimate derived from the originally reported numbers. So they are not the original numbers available, but numbers that weren't available until 1967.

So you look and see what was originally reported during the great depression. The best I have been able to come up with are these abstracts.

For the various years in question you can easily calculate the general non-farm workforce through basic addition and subtraction (population eligible to work by age, disabilities, etc). You can then find how many people are employed by looking at the payroll data (wages section). Subtract employed from total workforce and you have unemployed non-farm.

Now you need to see if you can calculate the farm worker unemployment stats from the info given. But first you need to realize some things about farmwork.

Employment and unemployment are not near as cut and dry in farmwork. Farmers are never fully "unemployed" in that they always have animals to take care of (and other chores) year round, but the work is very seasonal (in a sense). Farmers are also self-employed and (especially in the early part of the 1900's) very self-sufficient. No need to spend money to consume so very little need for money in general.

So, especially in the first part of the 1900's, they were very much "off the radar" (compared to the rest of the population) as far as the economy was concerned except when selling their crops/livestock.

So, how would you define an "unemployed" farm worker at that time? Remember the big drought that hit at the time (dustbowl kansas, etc.), and the fact that even though farmers had very little livestock/crops to grow and sell, they still had plenty of work to do in taking care of/protecting from the duststorms and drought what little property and livestock/crops they had, even if it was just enough to feed themselves for the year.

So they were working on their farm but were not producing anything to sell. They had no income and didn't need to spend anything. No payroll, no taxes to file. They were effectively an economic non-entity. So were they employed or unemployed?

Also, for the purposes of getting Census data, mail was harder to get out there and send, and getting someone out there to physically interview people (without introducing statistical error; keeping in truely random) was very hard as well.

Keep those things in mind and look at the stats given for farmer and farmworkers.

The stats are a lot more vague then the stats given for the non-farm sector. It really only looks at the overall property/assets owned by the various farm communities in general (and the general value and debt surrounding those assets), and general population. No real wages or monetary income data to report.

So, their really wasn't much of a way to calculate the employment and/or unemployment for farm workers for that time; especially in those unique circumstances.

Considering all that, it looks like Heritage is not simply "cherry picking" here and purposely not including unemplyment stats of farm workers from the great depression. It looks like there were no numbers available on unemployment of farm workers in the great depression.

You need to let this one go shag - one, it really has not a lot of bearing at this point and two, if you noticed I can spin a whole lot better using the numbers that Heritage uses.

Yep. You are much better then me at "spinning".

 

[foxpaws]

OK. Far too many head meets martinis plus repeated head meets headboard equals one muzzy fox...

I will do my best - but, obviously I am far more handicapped than I am normally.

Where did I ever say anything that even remotely suggested that I thought cutting cap gains/corporate taxes would get us out of a recession without creating new jobs (and thus reducing unemployment).?

your post #65

Abolish (or put into moratorium for a year or more) the corporate and/or capital gains taxes. I can guarantee you that in 6 months we will be out of this recession (probably sooner).

your post #71

How about you stop trying to raise the burden of proof (demanding a "guarantee" of job creation).

So, shag which is it? Either your program guaranteed jobs, or it doesn't...

Plus, as I said it is a guarantee easily made - it isn't going to happen, a moratorium on those taxes..

Does it really matter? Unless you can give a reasonable explaination why these distinctions are necessary here, it seem to me that you are simply trying to cloud the argument while raising the burden of proof...

Oh, I guess you really don't understand capital gains at all Shag - how much do you declare each year? There is a huge difference in how the different types affect the economy. There is a really good reason they are taxed so differently.

Fairness in this context (as in most contexts) is completely arbitrary and has no place in this discussion. to suggest the government should at all have any hand in making things "fair" is immoral.

Fairness - yes, there is a question of that - it is income. Why should one group not have to pay income taxes and plumbers still have to? There are many people whose entire income is made in the market. Should they not pay taxes on that income? It is class distinction if they don't.

If they have no incentive to do so, then they won't. Stimulus spending (Obama's plan) doesn't provide any incentive to them. Abolishing the corporate and/or capital gains tax will give them that incentive.

The incentive for corporations is one thing - sell the product. If no one is able to buy the product, it won't matter that they won't have to pay taxes. Zero sales equals zero taxes anyway.

Obama's plan works against private enterprise which is the wrong thing to do. In every recession , private enterprise has been the first to turn around from the "downward spiral" of the recession and pull the country out of the recession. Governments have only ever "helped" by getting out of the way of private enterprise and have only harmed when they try to pull the country out of the recession instead of private enterprise.

No government is capable of controlling or (even directly effecting in a positive way) the economy. They can only positively effect the economy through private enterprise, not by working against it (as Obama is doing).

How does spending in areas that private enterprise doesn't deal in hurt the economy? Private enterprise isn't what drives building roads or schools, or other infrastructure projects. Private industry builds those things for the government. And Obama's plan uses private industry to get those jobs done. So Obama is positively changing the economy through private enterprise.

No solution will have a substantive immediate effect. It doesn't matter who proposes it; and Obama/FDR, a Reagan, whoever. All any solution will have is an immediate (very short term) psychological benefit that will set the stage for either the sucess or the failure of whatever solution is enacted when the substance of it hits the market.

If the solution has a negative substantive effect, then the short term psychological benefit will only add a psychological draw back that will add to the negative effect of the recession. If the solution has a positive effect, then the psychological benefit from the short term effect will be sustained into the longer term substantive effect.

Stimulus spending has always had a negative effect on any recession. Tax cuts have been show to consistently have a positive effect.

Obama is cutting taxes... for the long term, but the short term psychological effect needs to happen quickly - the spending will do that. I don't want to live in a depression for the next 8 years, and unless real action, that will take place quickly happens, we have all the earmarks of a continuing spiral down. Losing 600,000 jobs in one month isn't the middle of recession numbers - which is what this would be if it is a standard recession, since this started in Dec 2007. Unemployment numbers like that show a deepening of the recession, heading toward depression. The market needs to stabilize, and if the unemployment numbers continue to fall at this rate - the market could go down to below 5,000 - depression. The government can create jobs this summer, as a stop gap until the tax cuts take effect and then the tax cuts can start to stimulate the economy on their own in about 2 years.

Recessions are self correcting - we have very little experience with depressions.

I never said anything like that. I said that they reduced the deficit. It is not speculative, either. The tax cuts increased tax revenue. If congress is deficit spending, then any increase in tax revenue is going to decrease that deficit.

It is not speculative, it is common sense.

And yes shag - you can keep adding little 'caveats' to your Reagan and increasing the deficit argument - now we are up to his tax cuts increased tax revenue.

In 1981 tax receipts were 663.9 billion, in 1988 they were 1,019.4 billion, an increase of 53%.

FDR - 1933 tax receipts were 8.6 billion in 1940 they were 16.6 billion, an increase of 93%.

Also, if you want to look at Clinton - who raised taxes, in 1993 tax receipts were 1318.2 billion and in 2000 the receipts were 2205.8, an increase of 67%.

Unless the GDP goes way down, you should always see increases in tax receipts shag - it is 'common sense.' Hoover's went down about 20%...

Want to compare against GDP - Reagan doesn't fare as well as FDR or Clinton.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, thank you for the little blurb and explanation on the little Heritage chart number problem. Wow - have they learned to back pedal. Like I said - it really doesn't matter here. But it is fascinating how they are trying to find a way to justify numbers that no one else has used regarding unemployment during the depression.

The WSJ uses the 25% number.
In 1933, Roosevelt's first year, unemployment hit nearly 25%, as people lost jobs and homes in towns across the country.

Cato's Jim Powell, a long time FDR critic uses the 14% low side unemployment number (not 21% that Heritage uses)
At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent.

Even Thomas Sowell uses nearly the same numbers as everyone else (other than Heritage)...
For nearly three consecutive years, beginning in February 1932, the unemployment rate never fell below 20 percent for any month before January 1935, when it fell to 19.3 percent, according to the Vedder and Gallaway statistics (Vedder/Galloway is actually lower than either the US Commerce or Census numbers, they have the average unemployment from 1933 - 40 at 18% far lower than the Heritage number)

The American Cause (Pat Buchanan) - By 1933, 89 percent of stock value had been wiped out, the economy had shrunk by one-third, thousands of banks had closed, a third of the money supply had vanished, and unemployment had reached 25 percent

The American Conservative - Unemployment went from 3.2 percent in 1929 to over 25 percent in 1933. It remained in double digits until 1941, a year after the military draft started.

Glenn Beck - By way of comparison, in the Great Depression, our national GDP fell 29% over a four year period (1929-1933) and in that period we saw 7000 banks fail, a 25% unemployment rate and a Dow Jones industrial Average suffer an 80% decline. And that was when the pain of a shrinking GDP was spread over 4 years!

Victor Hanson - NRO
But consider a few facts: Even in the current mess, recent unemployment figures are around 7 percent—not the 10 percent of the recession of the early 1980s, much less the peak of 25 percent in the Great Depression.

Amity Shlaes (author, Forgotten Man) - Blundering when they knew better, Herbert Hoover, his Treasury, the Federal Reserve and Congress drove that rate up to 25 percent. Roosevelt pulled unemployment down, but nowhere near enough to claim sustained recovery.

Everyone (especially conservatives) uses the 25% high - 14% low numbers.

Let go Shag... or, is The Wall Street Journal, CATO, The American Conservative, Sowell, Buchanan, Beck, NRO, Shlaes and no doubt more (those were just the ones I could remember as conservative sites) wrong?

It just raises the bar on one side - to 37.2 unemployment when FDR took office. Wow - I don't know of anyone else who claims that over 1 in 3 people were out of work when FDR took office. Heritage probably just looked in the wrong column, it got into print, and now, rather than just say whoops, they are trying to justify it when they got caught.

 

[shagdrum]

your post #65

Abolish (or put into moratorium for a year or more) the corporate and/or capital gains taxes. I can guarantee you that in 6 months we will be out of this recession (probably sooner).​

your post #71

How about you stop trying to raise the burden of proof (demanding a "guarantee" of job creation). ​

So, shag which is it? Either your program guaranteed jobs, or it doesn't...

Plus, as I said it is a guarantee easily made - it isn't going to happen, a moratorium on those taxes..

The "guarantee" thing was a figure of speech. I know you realize that (considering all your little "cute" comments here), so you are simply being purposely obtuse here. So, you have been running with this little passive agressive angle through the past 55 posts.

And the two quotes say nothing about job creation either way (except on you "demanding a 'guarantee' of job creation").

Not suprisingly, you are mischaracterizing me, again.

I only ever said that "we would be out of a recession in 6 months if we abolish the corporate and/or capital gains taxes". I said nothing about a guarantee of job creation.

I have made it pretty clear that there are two benefits from the cutting of corporate/capital gains taxes; short term and long term. Both would see some job creation, but the most job creation would come in the long term.

Oh, I guess you really don't understand capital gains at all Shag - how much do you declare each year? There is a huge difference in how the different types affect the economy. There is a really good reason they are taxed so differently.

Another clever Foxpaws argument; deflect, redirect and shift the burden of proof.

You still haven't shown how this is relevant. All the clever deflections and dodges in the world will not logically shift the burden of proof back to me.

Will cutting one capital gains tax not create an incentive to invest when another would?

Fairness - yes, there is a question of that - it is income. Why should one group not have to pay income taxes and plumbers still have to? There are many people whose entire income is made in the market. Should they not pay taxes on that income? It is class distinction if they don't.

Wow! Another 180 degree spin from foxpaws.

Not looking at income with and eye toward "fairness" is inherently not class distinction, while the reverse (which you seem to advocate) is the definition of class distinction when it comes to taxes.

Besides, those people paying a capital gains tax are (more often then not) investing money they already earned and payed taxes on.

The incentive for corporations is one thing - sell the product. If no one is able to buy the product, it won't matter that they won't have to pay taxes. Zero sales equals zero taxes anyway.

Then how have we ever come out of a recession? You keep ignoring history to justify your faith in flawed keynsian (or qazi-keynsian) assumptions. You are basing your view on unfounded speculation!

Your argument here is nothing more then rhetorical tautology ; not falsifiable and therefore not a valid argument.

History has shown that the government never gets a country out of a recession directly. The only thing that has ever done that is the free market!

You have not yet countered that in any way and simply ignore it to continue with your fallacious proof by assertion argument.

That little downward spiral you talk about is present in every recession (to varying degrees) and the only entity that has ever been shown to get a nation out of a recession is the free market and private enterprise. The government has never done that and has usually made things worse.

This quote (from here) puts it best:

The proper salve for a lack of job creation would be an infusion of capital into the markets. The failure of businesses normally creates openings for small start-ups to take their place, or for innovators to find new solutions to new problems and bring them to market. The Obama administration should encourage capital to come to market by lowering the risk cost through cuts in the capital-gains tax rates, or eliminating them entirely, for the next four years.

That will create jobs and expand opportunity, and would balance the layoffs of firms that had shaky business models even before the latest financial crisis. In fact, that’s why the 2000-1 recession managed to absorb the dot-com bubble collapse as well as the 9/11 attack collapse so well. The Bush administration lowered taxes and kept capital working to create jobs. Instead, the Obama administration wants to re-create the WPA, digging ditches just to refill them later, and paying for it by eventually seizing the capital that could have created real, long-term employment.
​

You act as it we are in a situation that the free market cannot cure but the government can, but every example in history has the exact opposite to be true.

Are you incapable of acknowledging that? Or are you purposly being obtuse and working to ofuscate.

You are basing your view completely on speculation, hyperbole, an intentional ignoring of history empty rhetorical truisms and faith in economic polices that have been proven failures.

How does spending in areas that private enterprise doesn't deal in hurt the economy?

Because the government has always spend "stimulus funds" in areas that don't help the economy. It is terrible at determining where more consumption is needed in the economy to turn it around because they are slow to act and weigh political concerns as at least as important as economic ones.

The only thing that has ever been able to determine that is the free market, by self correction.

Private enterprise isn't what drives building roads or schools, or other infrastructure projects. Private industry builds those things for the government. And Obama's plan uses private industry to get those jobs done. So Obama is positively changing the economy through private enterprise.

So...private industry isn't driving in those things...but they are?! You countradicted yourself in the space of three sentences.

Obama is cutting taxes... for the long term, but the short term psychological effect needs to happen quickly - the spending will do that. I don't want to live in a depression for the next 8 years, and unless real action, that will take place quickly happens, we have all the earmarks of a continuing spiral down.

Obama is not substantively cutting taxes. He is making token cuts that are going to be offset by the abolishing of Bush's tax cuts.

The short term psychological effect will be minor and will only be worth a damn if those positive assumption (that are the basis for the psychological effect) are rewarded.

History has shown that stimulus spending has a negative effect in part because of the more substantive long term effects not providing a positive effect on the economy, but a negative one. This means short term expectations are not met and leads to a negative psychological effect that magnifies the negative effects of stimulus spending. This is what lead to the Great Depression.

You are ignoring all that, and continuing to assert your view as fact. Your view is not backed up by facts but by fear-mongoring, speculation, hyperbole and intentionally ignoring the historical evidence. Your views are, in short, based on faith, not reason.

Again, your views here are nothing more then rhetorical tautologies ; not falsifiable and therefore not a valid argument.

You are very clever at obfuscating. This is an excellent example of that. Nothing but a smoke screen.

Recessions are self correcting - we have very little experience with depressions.

from here:

In economics, a depression is a sustained, long downturn in one or more economies. It is more severe than a recession, which is seen as a normal downturn in the business cycle.

Considered a rare but extreme form of recession, a depression is characterized by abnormal increases in unemployment, restriction of credit, shrinking output and investment, numerous bankruptcies, reduced amounts of trade and commerce, as well as highly volatile relative currency value fluctuations, mostly devaluations...

...A proposed definition for depression is a sustained recessionary period in which the population is forced to dispose of tangible assets to fund every day living, as was seen in the US and in Germany in the 1930s.
​

a depression is a recession. You are trying to make a differentiation where one doesn't exist; another fallacious argument called denying the correlative.

where an attempt is made to introduce another option into a true correlative​

And yes shag - you can keep adding little 'caveats' to your Reagan and increasing the deficit argument - now we are up to his tax cuts increased tax revenue.

I am not simply "adding little caveats" to the argument; I am explaining it to counter your intentional and habitual mischaracterization of my argument.

In 1981 tax receipts were 663.9 billion, in 1988 they were 1,019.4 billion, an increase of 53%.

FDR - 1933 tax receipts were 8.6 billion in 1940 they were 16.6 billion, an increase of 93%.

Also, if you want to look at Clinton - who raised taxes, in 1993 tax receipts were 1318.2 billion and in 2000 the receipts were 2205.8, an increase of 67%

.

And we have another fallacious argument. This time a false analogy as well as a red herring.

Tax receipts in general went up for under Reagan, FDR and Clinton for different reasons. You cannot reasonably compare them at such a broad level, it is dishonest.

So... to recap your last two posts we have...

• 2 examples of mischaracterization/distortion
• 1 example of shifting the burden of proof
• 2 red herring arguments
• 1 rehtorical tautology
• 1 proof by assertion
• 1 false analogy
• 1 denying the correlative
• 1 example of cherry picking
• 1 broad example of quoting out of context
• 1 appeal to the majority

I may have missed some things...

By my count that is 12 dishonest, deceptive and/or fallacious arguments.

That habitual dishonesty, deceptiveness and irrationality veiled in passive agressive, "cutsie" little smoke screens is why you have no credibility here. You will not see reason but will keep muddying up the waters in defense of your point of view until the end of time. Cutting through that obfuscation takes a lot of time and effort (if you are gonna do it thoughly).

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, thank you for the little blurb and explanation on the little Heritage chart number problem. Wow - have they learned to back pedal. Like I said - it really doesn't matter here. But it is fascinating how they are trying to find a way to justify numbers that no one else has used regarding unemployment during the depression.

The WSJ uses the 25% number.
In 1933, Roosevelt's first year, unemployment hit nearly 25%, as people lost jobs and homes in towns across the country.

Cato's Jim Powell, a long time FDR critic uses the 14% low side unemployment number (not 21% that Heritage uses)
At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent.

Even Thomas Sowell uses nearly the same numbers as everyone else (other than Heritage)...
For nearly three consecutive years, beginning in February 1932, the unemployment rate never fell below 20 percent for any month before January 1935, when it fell to 19.3 percent, according to the Vedder and Gallaway statistics (Vedder/Galloway is actually lower than either the US Commerce or Census numbers, they have the average unemployment from 1933 - 40 at 18% far lower than the Heritage number)

The American Cause (Pat Buchanan) - By 1933, 89 percent of stock value had been wiped out, the economy had shrunk by one-third, thousands of banks had closed, a third of the money supply had vanished, and unemployment had reached 25 percent

The American Conservative - Unemployment went from 3.2 percent in 1929 to over 25 percent in 1933. It remained in double digits until 1941, a year after the military draft started.

Glenn Beck - By way of comparison, in the Great Depression, our national GDP fell 29% over a four year period (1929-1933) and in that period we saw 7000 banks fail, a 25% unemployment rate and a Dow Jones industrial Average suffer an 80% decline. And that was when the pain of a shrinking GDP was spread over 4 years!

Victor Hanson - NRO
But consider a few facts: Even in the current mess, recent unemployment figures are around 7 percent—not the 10 percent of the recession of the early 1980s, much less the peak of 25 percent in the Great Depression.

Amity Shlaes (author, Forgotten Man) - Blundering when they knew better, Herbert Hoover, his Treasury, the Federal Reserve and Congress drove that rate up to 25 percent. Roosevelt pulled unemployment down, but nowhere near enough to claim sustained recovery.

Everyone (especially conservatives) uses the 25% high - 14% low numbers.

Let go Shag... or, is The Wall Street Journal, CATO, The American Conservative, Sowell, Buchanan, Beck, NRO, Shlaes and no doubt more (those were just the ones I could remember as conservative sites) wrong?

It just raises the bar on one side - to 37.2 unemployment when FDR took office. Wow - I don't know of anyone else who claims that over 1 in 3 people were out of work when FDR took office. Heritage probably just looked in the wrong column, it got into print, and now, rather than just say whoops, they are trying to justify it when they got caught.

So...your response is to cherry pick by quoting out of context to mischaracterize things and then make a fallacious appeal to the majority argument?!

That argument is laughable!

Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.​

You are intentionally citing only info that confirms your position while ignoring any info that counters it.

There are countless examples of sources quoting the other set of numbers, but you seemed to miss all those. Wonder why?

The practice of "quoting out of context", sometimes referred to as "contextomy," is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.​

As I have pointed out a number of times, there are two different sets of numbers generally cited. The numbers that came from the Great Depression are not generally comparable to modern numbers. The 1967 estimates (and many later estimates) were created to make the numbers more comparable. So weather or not the people you point to as citing these numbers are making comparisons to modern numbers is very important in determining why they cite those numbers.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."​

"If all the other kids were jumping off a bridge, would you?"

Apparently you would, because you are viewing that logic as a reasonable argument.

Just because all those other people cite the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates doesn't mean that the numbers Heritage cite are wrong. In fact, to characterize it as one set being "wrong" and one set being "right" (which you are doing by implication) is to mischaracterize things.

Both sets of numbers are valid. However, one dataset is directly from the original numbers of the time and one dataset comes from estimates based on those original numbers. Therefore one set is more accurate because it has less degrees of separation from the facts and truth.

They are clearly not "backpedaling" in any way, and they were clearly not being sloppy. The numbers they used are perfectly justified. The conclusions about the effect of the great depression they drew and proven by all sets of numbers (government spending does not create economic recovery and didn't bring unemployment to "normal" levels).

The only difference is in the degree of unemployment reported. The numbers most commonly cited are the ones you cite (that still prove the point). The numbers Heritage cites are directly drawn (not estimated) from the original numbers reported by the government and are as close to the "official reported numbers" on unemployment as you can get for those years.

You apparently cannot let this go. Heritage has been vidicated but you won't admit it.

Now you are trying to switch arguments in the middle of the debate. You have stopped focusing on the whole"farm worker/non-farm worker" thing, and are trying to attack them as using the "wrong" numbers when they clearly aren't.

You clearly will say and/or do anything to defend your liberal faith without any concern for things like honesty or integrity. The ends justify the means, apparenty.

Here is a very good article on this subject which I doubt you will read or even consider.